|
 Sinistar
I Am Sinistar
Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 29
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
 For You Gun Haters 
#1232443 - 01/19/03 09:45 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
heres my feelings on the subject: i dont care if you dont like me having a gun. if you dont like guns, kool. your entitled to your opinions. so am i, esp when its about my rights.
lets stop fooling ourselves. neither one of the groups on this subject gives a damn about the others thoughts. but there is a difference. the guys who support the second amendment are going for the broadest rights possible. this is something the left would usually jump right behind.
bottom line: your opinions are welcome till they run against MY RIGHTS. my rights trump your opinions every single time.
i love these brady campaign toadys who obviously get off on busting guys balls just for the fact they like guns and have been raised to expect the right to own them.
ive read several of the posts here about gun control and the anti-gunners giggle like a bunch of stupid cunts with comments like 'you have how many guns? i bet your dicks small.' its in the 5 days for a gun post.
this is the level of discussion for these guys. and when you refuse to see the world through there eyes they try to beat you over the head with shit like the supreme courts rulings.
america has allowed the owning of other ppl. america locks up 750,000 ppl a year for pot infractions. america guts the constitution after 9/11, so the ppl pay the price twice. americas wages have been stagnant for the worker for 20 years. americas justice system locks up dark ppl at 13X the rate of whites. americas justice system gives slaps on the wrists to ppl who bankrupt companies ruining ppls lives. the american justice system didnt go after Bernie Ebbers when his $400 million dollar heist from worldcom just went missing. yes thats right folks, it just disappeared and no ones looking for it.
im sure other ppl have even more bullshit to say aboutht e justice system in this country. and thats why i say when you gun haters start slinging shit about court rulings:
I GIVE 2 SQUIRTS OF JIZZ ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT. ARENT THESE FUCKS THE SAME ASSHOLES THAT PUT BUSH IN OFFICE?
gun haters arent much different than racists. pro gun ppl are just another form of nigger to push around. these ppl will jump on any cause they can point to a court desicion to prove theyre right and shove it down everyones throat.
smoking,violent games, sexual games, gory games, violent TV, sexual TV, violent movies, sexual movies, guns, fast food places, violent music, sexed up popstars. all the above are the same type of bullshit these ppl love getting mouthy about. these ignorant assholes dont even get that most of them are directly against what these shitheads supposedly love more than anything: free speech.
they bitch and raise holy hell about bush even looking towards partial birth abortion, but these fucks dont mind the govt shitting on what the watch and listen to. so where exactly is the govts place in the ppls lives guys? ok to kill babies, bad to watch WWF? give me a fucking break.
ill go eye for eye against anyone on here. but a suggestion maybe?
how about we stop trying to prove which one of us is right, and focus on the stuff that brings us together instead of divide us? cause i guarntee when the govt starts to fuck up, it wont just fuck with gun owners or pro abortionists. nope, were equally as fucked then.
or we could keep fighting amoungst ourselves, letting shit like gun control polarize us until the whole system falls. not into a better system, but into full out anarchy and lawlessness. sound fun? im sure it would be until a guy with one of thise banned guns comes up and removes your brain from its pan.
all gun owners want is to keep there guns and not have the fucking govt know every gun, vcr,computer, every site visited, what you bought with credit cards ect ect.
if youve got a problem with that, maybe your the fucking problem in this country.
--------------------
I Am Sinistar
You Dont Pay A Hooker For Sex, You Pay Them To Leave.
In The City, Where Angels Fear To Hover And Devils Come To Croon, The Sex Of The Night Lets Down Her Black Narcotic Hair To A Yellow Opium Moon.
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1232452 - 01/19/03 09:55 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
or we could keep fighting amoungst ourselves, letting shit like gun control polarize us until the whole system falls.
So instead we should just agree with you for the purpose of getting along?
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1232459 - 01/19/03 09:59 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
There are few here more into guns and gun rights than I.
There are a few bits of information or statements wrong in your post though.
----------------------------------------
americas wages have been stagnant for the worker for 20 years
americas justice system locks up dark ppl at 13X the rate of whites(even if this were correct, you can't say whether or not crimes are comitted at a higher rate by blacks or not. Look at the survey done on the NJ State Police. Turns out blacks were speeding at a much higher rate and as such were pulled over more)
ARENT THESE FUCKS THE SAME ASSHOLES THAT PUT BUSH IN OFFICE?
(No. Federal and State election laws did that. The Supreme Court merely upheld the existing laws. Recounts done after the fact upheld the election results. Funniest part of that is that the recount the Gore team wanted gave Bush an the largest margin of victory.) Also the Supreme Court has made only one 2nd ammendment decision, that sawed off shotguns had no military use and as such were not protected by the 2nd. Which of course is still wrong but not the sweeping victory the gun grabbers claim it to be.
---------------------------------
You are correct though about the hypocritical stand many people take on the Bill Of Rights. Many seem to have a "it's ok for your rights to be trampled on as long as you leave mine alone" type of mentality. Sad really.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
G a n j a
Pictish and proud
Registered: 12/03/02
Posts: 7,860
Loc: Zone ate
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1232489 - 01/19/03 10:13 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
You know something sinistar....i think you just converted me to your point of view.
But i will still say that maybe its the hunting aspect of guns that i dislike the most.
I see no point in shooting anything for sport.Unless its an unalive target.Or a politican.
But you make a very good argument for ownership.
--------------------
er
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1232490 - 01/19/03 10:13 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I used to argue against guns being legal but I now realise it is upto the individual to do what he/she sees fit. However, I believe the need to bear arms is an indicator of fear and paranoia. As a species, we need to move past these unhelpful behavioural programs urgently. But to you guys who arent ready, dont point your little ego trippin, penis extensions at me! 
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GazzBut]
#1233172 - 01/20/03 06:07 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I believe the need to bear arms is an indicator of fear and paranoia.
As much as wanting health insurance is an indicator of fear and paranoia?
As much as wanting to protect against unreasonable search and seizures is an indicator of fear and paranoia?
As much as wanting the right to freedom of political speach is an indicator of fear and paranoia?
It seems to me that the ones who are suffering from the greatest everyday fear and paranoia are the ones who want to take arms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. For the record, it is not the need to bear arms which we support but the right to bear arms.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1233216 - 01/20/03 06:25 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But you sinistar... are a moron. 
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1233241 - 01/20/03 06:32 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
As much as wanting health insurance is an indicator of fear and paranoia?
No, I have health insurance. I just don't go round packing heat.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233263 - 01/20/03 06:39 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If we are to apply the same 'logic' of the anti-gun crowd, you are afraid and paranoid of getting sick and requiring extensive medical help.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1233324 - 01/20/03 06:57 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
your entitled to your opinions.
and then...
bottom line: your opinions are welcome till they run against MY RIGHTS. my rights trump your opinions every single time.
Is this not a contradiction? Your opinions are welcome until they contradict mine? Your "right" to own a gun is your opinion. Some people believe that you do not have a right to own a firearm. That is there opinion, and they are entitled to it.
america has allowed the owning of other ppl. america locks up 750,000 ppl a year for pot infractions. america guts the constitution after 9/11, so the ppl pay the price twice. americas wages have been stagnant for the worker for 20 years. americas justice system locks up dark ppl at 13X the rate of whites. americas justice system gives slaps on the wrists to ppl who bankrupt companies ruining ppls lives. the american justice system didnt go after Bernie Ebbers when his $400 million dollar heist from worldcom just went missing. yes thats right folks, it just disappeared and no ones looking for it.
The fact that our justice system has problems does little to support your views. I suppose that you are trying to run an argument against the fact that the Supreme Court has made some anti-gun decisions in the past. It's just politics though. Sure, the Supreme Court and our justice system in general makes mistakes... but that does nothing towards showing that Gun Control is one of them.
gun haters arent much different than racists. pro gun ppl are just another form of nigger to push around. these ppl will jump on any cause they can point to a court desicion to prove theyre right and shove it down everyones throat.
Not much different then racists? Racists are ignorant folk who are intolerant of another persons culture, race, or ethnicity because they feel it is inferior to their own. Anti-Gun advocates simply believe that we'd be better off as a society if only the government and criminals had guns. They're wrong, but it's not because they hate you or me. They don't hate gun owners, they hate guns.
smoking,violent games, sexual games, gory games, violent TV, sexual TV, violent movies, sexual movies, guns, fast food places, violent music, sexed up popstars. all the above are the same type of bullshit these ppl love getting mouthy about. these ignorant assholes dont even get that most of them are directly against what these shitheads supposedly love more than anything: free speech.
This statement is a good example of a fallacy you run with throughout your argument. You are attacking the people, not their ideas. Some people are against these things you mention, and guns as well. But we're not talking about those things, we're talking about guns. Guns are the issue, not all that other stuff. There are alot of people who are pro-free speech and anti-gun. If you want to start an argument about free speech, that's a different issue.
they bitch and raise holy hell about bush even looking towards partial birth abortion, but these fucks dont mind the govt shitting on what the watch and listen to. so where exactly is the govts place in the ppls lives guys? ok to kill babies, bad to watch WWF? give me a fucking break.
Again, abortion is not the issue. You're attacking the Left, and completely missing going against the anti-gun argument
And the rest of your post from there barely even makes sense.
The first thing that struck me about your post was your intense anger against those you disagree with. You resort to a childish display of name-calling.
brady campaign toadys
anti-gunners giggle like a bunch of stupid cunts
but these fucks dont mind the govt
This attitude prevents you from seeing things from the viewpoint of the opposing side, which is absolutely essential to first arriving at a valid viewpoint and then defending it. A post like this is embarrising to level-headed gun rights advocates everywhere. The idea about your rights being infringed upon is a crappy argument. We live in a society, a group. Your rights come second to the overall welfare of the group. Anti-gun people think we'd be better off as a society if NO ONE (except the gov't and the criminals of course ) had guns. It's the same justification for the drug war. Think of the whole of society, not just yourself, and you'll see where they stand. You can then make a the arguement that gun-ownership is actually indeed GOOD for our society, instead of just throwing around insults and crap arguments. I can argue that the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights does indeed specifically give CITIZENS the right to keep and bear arms, and that there was and still is good reason for it. Until you can do that, stop embarrising other gun-rights people with your inane posts.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233349 - 01/20/03 07:05 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
>Your "right" to own a gun is your opinion.
No, it's a right. Can you not read the Constitution?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233355 - 01/20/03 07:06 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I have a feeling people are gonna have a field day with this post.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Dogomush
Barbless Aryan
Registered: 10/05/02
Posts: 1,286
Loc: The Canadian west coast
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1233378 - 01/20/03 07:13 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sinistar that's a pretty angry-sounding post you made there. I like this part:
gun haters arent much different than racists. pro gun ppl are just another form of nigger to push around
The way you adress gun-haters it sounds like they too are a kind of nigger to push around! Sweet! Sorry but I'd rather stay polarized. Not because I don't support civil rights, but because you're an angry person and you like owning weapons that are designed to kill (really nasty combo IMO). You just aren't the kind of person I want to unite with, ya creep!
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1233379 - 01/20/03 07:13 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If you had read my post, you would have seen that I agree that gun ownership by civilians is indeed a right guaranteed by the 2nd Ammendment. I can back that up if anyone would like... I was simply saying that the opinion of the opposing side is that it is not a right, and so, his argument about their opinions trampling on his rights, is an empty argument... He just said, "I'm right because you're wrong" and that's it. I could say "I have a right to eat babies! what? you're opinion is that I don't have the right to do that? You are WRONG!! because you're opinion tramples on my RIGHTS!!!"... clearly bullshit.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1233385 - 01/20/03 07:14 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
A well regulated Militia
Can you not read the constitution?
The supreme court and federals courts have always agreed the second amendment applies to militia's not individuals.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Dogomush
Barbless Aryan
Registered: 10/05/02
Posts: 1,286
Loc: The Canadian west coast
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233393 - 01/20/03 07:16 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The first thing that struck me about your post was your intense anger against those you disagree with. You resort to a childish display of name-calling.
that's fer damn sure
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233418 - 01/20/03 07:22 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
A well regulated Militia Can you not read the constitution?
The supreme court and federals courts have always agreed the second amendment applies to militia's not individuals.
The National Guard was founded in 1903, hundreds of years after the Bill of Rights was written. The founding fathers were talking about the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms being essential to the security of a free state. A look at letters and papers written by them supports this. They definitely meant the civilian populace, not the army. That much is a fact, a documented, historical fact, that the Supreme Court (which has made many mistakes in the past), overlooked. Your argument is one often used by anti-gun people, but it's crap. The argument you COULD make is that although it may have been good at the time, an armed populace is no longer beneficial... I would dispute you on that one though.
Edited by mushmaster (01/20/03 08:28 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233432 - 01/20/03 07:28 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mi?li?tia ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
reg?u?late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg?u?lat?ed, reg?u?lat?ing, reg?u?lates
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
Maybe you should go back and read what luvdemshrooms said in this post. Not only this, but the Bill of Rights says outright that individual PEOPLE have the right to bear arms (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Now provide me with a Supreme Court ruling that says contrary. As of yet, you have NO proof of your claims.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233442 - 01/20/03 07:31 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
the right of the PEOPLE
I guess we can argue about what we "think they meant" from now until forever. Or we can simply read what the amendment says. It clearly refers to militias.
If they had meant individuals surely they would have simply said "Individuals have the right to own guns"?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233455 - 01/20/03 07:38 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
OK, so you're choosing to ignore a word clearly written in the amendment (people) and ignoring the definition of another (militia).
And back to the question:
Now provide me with a Supreme Court ruling that says contrary. As of yet, you have NO proof of your claims.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: G a n j a]
#1233467 - 01/20/03 07:41 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ganja.. Hunting is population control. MANY studies have shown that animal populations starve en masse without hunters.
Granted, its cruel.. but so is letting animals die a slow death of starvation.
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
 Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1233477 - 01/20/03 07:44 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Holy shit. I'm pretty neutral on this issue (I couldn't care less if guns are outlawed or not which would probably make many pro-gun folks feel I'm against them), but the way the 2nd amendment is worded makes the argument for gun ownership a HELL OF A LOT weaker than I thought! 
"A well regulated"
Sounds like strict gun control laws aren't out of the question at all.
"Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
This whole amendment is based on the necessity of a militia for the security of a free State. I think it would be an easy argument to make that a militia is no longer necessary for our security. I mean, how hard is the Government or anyone else pushing for the entire country to become armed to help us defend ourselves against the impending Iraqi and N. Korean threats???
In fact, if you take the 2nd amendment literally, I would say that in order to own a gun, one must be a member of the militia!!!!!
Edit: Based on the definition of "militia" above, the National Guard clearly does not qualify as being a militia.
--------------------
 Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
Edited by GoBlue! (01/20/03 07:52 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233480 - 01/20/03 07:44 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The post above yours defines militia, perhaps you should try reading it. =]
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233491 - 01/20/03 07:47 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Security of a free state. Alright.. gun laws say no person may own a gun legally. Those who do are criminals.
Many criminals commit crime. Criminals have guns and innocent civillians dont. This is not a secure state.
Gun laws are pretty strict, but they can only apply to LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233497 - 01/20/03 07:49 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
In fact, if you take the 2nd amendment literally, I would say that in order to own a gun, one must be a member of the militia!!!!!
That's what the supreme court and federal courts think too. Whatever reason gun ownership is allowed in the US it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment. The NRA have had several chances to test their theory of the second amendment in court but have always backed down because they know they'd get their ass kicked.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233508 - 01/20/03 07:53 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
A well regulated militia A gathering of armed citizens
being necessary to the security of a free State Helps secure liberty in a nation
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms American citizens have a Constitutional right to be armed
shall not be infringed This right is NOT to be eroded
Quote:
Sounds like strict gun control laws aren't out of the question at all.
To infringe is to encroach (according to Dictionary.com) and to encroach is "to take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily."
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233516 - 01/20/03 07:55 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Security of a free state. Alright.. gun laws say no person may own a gun legally. Those who do are criminals.
Many criminals commit crime. Criminals have guns and innocent civillians dont. This is not a secure state.
Gun laws are pretty strict, but they can only apply to LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
I agree with you this. But don't statistics prove that the smaller the percentage of gun owners in a country, the less likely a gun will be used to commit a crime??? In other words, you are right, some criminals will continue to break the law and use guns. But a lot fewer of them will.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1233533 - 01/20/03 08:01 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
To infringe is to encroach (according to Dictionary.com) and to encroach is "to take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily."
If you're not part of a militia, then gun ownership doesn't appear to be a right (at least the way I read the 2nd amendment).
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233538 - 01/20/03 08:02 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Even if gun related deaths go down, other violent crime related deaths go up. If someone is intent on killing you, this person isn't going to stop because it's a pain in the ass to get a gun, he'll just go buy a knife or a bat, and kill you some other way. Plus, now you aren't allowed to own a gun to protect yourself.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233542 - 01/20/03 08:08 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
And who's to say you can't be a one man militia?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1233543 - 01/20/03 08:08 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'd rather take my chances with the guy with a bat than the guy with a magnum.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
chills420
Poo Pie Maker
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 354
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233585 - 01/20/03 08:37 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'd rather just hit the dude with the bat with both barrels of my 12 gauge. Less work well minus draging them out and digging a hole. LOL
I wouldn't give up shit to anyone no matter weather the government wants my shit or not.
I'm not above digging holes and hidding shit or fighting to keep whats mine.
This is just another reason to buy your ammo in bulk and learn to reload
--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: chills420]
#1233615 - 01/20/03 08:45 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Do you think if someone wanted to kill you they'd say "arm yourself, I'm about to kill you!"??? I doubt it. I think you'd be dead before you had a chance to defend yourself.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233617 - 01/20/03 08:46 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The framers of the constitution did indeed mean that the PEOPLE should be allowed to own guns. We've got 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They all specifically limit the government from taking away certain freedoms from the people. That is the spirit of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment refers to the right of the people to own weapons, and limits the government's ability to remove that right. Do you really think that the Second Amendment actually means "the Army is allowed to have weapons"?... that's ridiculous. They were referring to the people. The founding fathers, with out a doubt, were referring to the right of the PEOPLE to own guns. This is a historical FACT that I cannot stress enough.
It is the role of the Supreme Court to INTERPREPT legislation, not CREATE it. If the constitution is to be changed, as it would be to allow for gun control, it will require an amendment by Congress, and there are procedures set in the constitution for this. The Supreme Court overstepped it's arena of power when it intentionally "re-interpreted" the Second Amendment.
I'm not even talking about whether it is "right" or "wrong" to allow people to own guns here... I'm just saying that by the way the Bill of Rights is written, gun control is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court did a really poor job when it decided to say otherwise. A politically charged body of 9 men made a mistake (or more likely their "interpretation" was intentionally and knowingly incorrect).
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233625 - 01/20/03 08:49 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This is an excellent article IMO. Anti-Gun people... if you really think you're open minded about this issue... I hope you're not too lazy or stubborn to read this article.
The False Promise of Gun Control
Daniel D. Polsby
From the March 1994 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 1960s and 1970s the robbery rate in the United States increased sixfold, and the murder rate doubled; the rate of handgun ownership nearly doubled in that period as well. handguns and criminal violence grew together apace, and national opinion leaders did not fail to remark on that coincidence.
It has become a bipartisan article of faith that more handguns cause more violence. Such was the unequivocal conclusion of the national Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence in 1969, and such is now the editorial opinion of virtually every influential newspaper and magazine, from The Washington Post to The Economist to the Chicago Tribune. Members of the House and Senate who have not dared to confront the gun lobby concede the connection privately. Even if the National Rifle Association can produce blizzards of angry calls and letters to the Capitol virtually overnight, House members one by one have been going public, often after some new firearms atrocity at a fast-food restaurant or the like. And last November they passed the Brady bill.
Alas, however well accepted, the conventional wisdom about guns and violence is mistaken. Guns don't increase national rates of crime and violence -- but the continued proliferation of gun-control laws almost certainly does. Current rates of crime and violence are a bit below the peaks of the late 1970s, but because of a slight oncoming bulge in the at-risk population of males aged fifteen to thirty-four, the crime rate will soon worsen. The rising generation of criminals will have no more difficulty than their elders did in obtaining the tools of their trade. Growing violence will lead to calls for laws still more severe. Each fresh round of legislation will be followed by renewed frustration.
Gun-control laws don't work. What is worse, they act perversely. While legitimate users of firearms encounter intense regulation, scrutiny, and bureaucratic control, illicit markets easily adapt to whatever difficulties a free society throws in their way. Also, efforts to curtail the supply of firearms inflict collateral damage on freedom and privacy interests that have long been considered central to American public life. Thanks to the seemingly never-ending war on drugs and long experience attempting to suppress prostitution and pornography, we know a great deal about how illicit markets function and how costly to the public attempts to control them can be. It is essential that we make use of this experience in coming to grips with gun control.
The thousands of gun-control laws in the United States are of two general types. The older kind sought to regulate how, where, and by whom firearms could be carried. More recent laws have sought to make it more costly to buy, sell, or use firearms (or certain classes of firearms, such as assault rifles, Saturday-night specials, and so on) by imposing fees, special taxes, or surtaxes on them. The Brady bill is of both types: it has a background-check provision, and its five-day waiting period amounts to a "time tax" on acquiring handguns. All such laws can be called scarcity-inducing, because they seek to raise the cost of buying firearms, as figured in terms of money, time, nuisance, or stigmatization.
Despite the mounting number of scarcity-inducing laws, no one is very satisfied with them. Hobbyists want to get rid of them, and gun-control proponents don't think they go nearly far enough. Everyone seems to agree that gun-control laws have some effect on the distribution of firearms. But it has not been the dramatic and measurable effect their proponents desired.
Opponents of gun control have traditionally wrapped their arguments in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Indeed, most modern scholarship affirms that so far as the drafters of the Bill of Rights were concerned, the right to bear arms was to be enjoyed by everyone, not just a militia, and that one of the principal justifications for an armed populace was to secure the tranquility and good order of the community. But most people are not dedicated antiquitarians, and would not be impressed by the argument "I admit that my behavior is very dangerous to public safety, but the Second Amendment says I have a right to do it anyway." That would be a case for repealing the Second Amendment, not respecting it.
Fighting the demand curve
Everyone knows that possessing a handgun makes it easier to intimidate, wound, or kill someone. But the implication of this point for social policy has not been so well understood. It is easy to count the bodies of those who have been killed or wounded with guns, but not easy to count the people who have avoided harm because they had access to weapons. Think about uniformed police officers, who carry handguns in plain view not in order to kill people but simply to daunt potential attackers. And it works. Criminals generally do not single out police officers for opportunistic attack. Though officers can expect to draw their guns from time to time, few even in big-city departments will actually fire a shot (except in target practice) in the course of a year. This observation points to an important truth: people who are armed make comparatively unattractive victims. A criminal might not know if any one civilian is armed, but if it becomes known that a larger number of civilians do carry weapons, criminals will become warier.
Which weapons laws are the right kinds can be decided only after considering two related questions. First, what is the connection between civilian possession of firearms and social violence? Second, how can we expect gun-control laws to alter people's behavior? Most recent scholarship raises serious questions about the "weapons increase violence" hypothesis. The second question is emphasized here, because it is routinely overlooked and often mocked when noticed; yet it is crucial. Rational gun control requires understanding not only the relationship between weapons and violence but also the relationship between laws and people's behavior. Some things are very hard to accomplish with laws. The purpose of a law and its likely effects are not always the same thing. many statutes are notorious for the way in which their unintended effects have swamped their intended ones.
In order to predict who will comply with gun-control laws, we should remember that guns are economic goods that are traded in markets. Consumers' interest in them varies. For religious, moral, aesthetic, or practical reasons, some people would refuse to buy firearms at any price. Other people willingly pay very high prices for them.
Handguns, so often the subject of gun-control laws, are desirable for one purpose -- to allow a person tactically to dominate a hostile transaction with another person. The value of a weapon to a given person is a function of two factors: how much he or she wants to dominate a confrontation if one occurs, and how likely it is that he or she will actually be in a situation calling for a gun.
Dominating a transaction simply means getting what one wants without being hurt. Where people differ is in how likely it is that they will be involved in a situation in which a gun will be valuable. Someone who intends to engage in a transaction involving a gun -- a criminal, for example -- is obviously in the best possible position to predict that likelihood. Criminals should therefore be willing to pay more for a weapon than most other people would. Professors, politicians, and newspaper editors are, as a group, at very low risk of being involved in such transactions, and they thus systematically underrate the value of defensive handguns. (Correlative, perhaps, is their uncritical readiness to accept studies that debunk the utility of firearms for self-defense.) The class of people we wish to deprive of guns, then, is the very class with the most inelastic demand for them -- criminals -- whereas the people most like to comply with gun-control laws don't value guns in the first place.
Do guns drive up crime rates?
Which premise is true -- that guns increase crime or that the fear of crime causes people to obtain guns? Most of the country's major newspapers apparently take this problem to have been solved by an article published by Arthur Kellermann and several associates in the October 7, 1993, New England Journal of Medicine. Kellermann is an emergency-room physician who has published a number of influential papers that he believes discredit the thesis that private ownership of firearms is a useful means of self-protection. (An indication of his wide influence is that within two months the study received almost 100 mentions in publications and broadcast transcripts indexed in the Nexis database.) For this study Kellermann and his associates identified fifteen behavioral and fifteen environmental variables that applied to a 388-member set of homicide victims, found a "matching" control group of 388 non-homicide victims, and then ascertained how the two groups differed in gun ownership. In interviews Kellermann made clear his belief that owning a handgun markedly increases a person's risk of being murdered.
But the study does not prove that point at all. Indeed, as Kellermann explicitly conceded in the text of the article, the causal arrow may very well point in the other direction: the threat of being killed may make people more likely to arm themselves. Many people at risk of being killed, especially people involved in the drug trade or other illegal ventures, might well rationally buy a gun as a precaution, and be willing to pay a price driven up by gun-control laws. Crime, after all, is a dangerous business. Peter Reuter and Mark Kleiman, drug-policy researchers, calculated in 1987 that the average crack dealer's risk of being killed was far greater than his risk of being sent to prison. (Their data cannot, however, support the implication that ownership of a firearm causes or exacerbates the risk of being killed.)
Defending the validity of his work, Kellermann has emphasized that the link between lung cancer and smoking was initially established by studies methodologically no different from his. Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University, has pointed out the flaw in this comparison. No one ever thought that lung cancer causes smoking, so when the association between the two was established the direction of the causal arrow was not in doubt. Kleck wrote that it is as though Kellermann, trying to discover how diabetics differ from other people, found that they are much more likely to possess insulin than nondiabetics, and concluded that insulin is a risk factor for diabetes.
The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and the Chicago Tribune all gave prominent coverage to Kellermann's study as soon as it appeared, but none saw fit to discuss the study's limitations. A few, in order to introduce a hint of balance, mentioned that the NRA, or some member of its staff, disagreed with the study. But readers had no way of knowing that Kellermann himself had registered a disclaimer in his text. "It is possible," he conceded, "that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Indeed, the point is stronger than that: "reverse causation" may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion.
If firearms increased violence and crime, then rates of spousal homicide would have skyrocketed, because the stock of privately owned handguns has increased rapidly since the mid-1960s. But according to an authoritative study of spousal homicide in the American Journal of Public Health, by James Mercy and Linda Saltzman, rates of spousal homicide in the years 1976 to 1985 fell. If firearms increased violence and crime, the crime rate should have increased throughout the 1980s, while the national stock of privately owned handguns increased by more than a million units in every year of the decade. It did not. Nor should the rate of violence and crime in Switzerland, New Zealand, and Israel be as low as they are, since the number of firearms per civilian household is comparable to that in the United States. Conversely, gun-controlled Mexico and South Africa should be islands of peace instead of having murder rates more than twice as high as those here. The determinants of crime and law-abidingness are, of course, complex matters, which are not fully understood and certainly not explicable in terms of a country's laws. But gun-control enthusiasts, who have made capital out of the low murder rate in England, which is largely disarmed, simply ignore the counterexamples that don't fit their theory.
If firearms increased violence and crime, Florida's murder rate should not have been falling since the introduction, seven years ago, of a law that makes it easier for ordinary citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Yet the murder rate has remained the same or fallen every year since the law was enacted, and it is now lower than the national murder rate (which has been rising). As of last November 183,561 permits had been issued, and only seventeen of the permits had been revoked because the holder was involved in a firearms offense. It would be precipitate to claim that the new law has "caused" the murder rate to subside. Yet here is a situation that doesn't fit the hypothesis that weapons increase violence.
If firearms increased violence and crime, programs of induced scarcity would suppress violence and crime. But -- another anomaly -- they don't. Why not? A theorem, which we could call the futility theorem, explains why gun-control laws must either be ineffectual or in the long term actually provoke more violence and crime. Any theorem depends on both observable fact and assumption. An assumption that can be made with confidence is that the higher the number of victims a criminals assumes to be armed, the higher will be the risk -- the price -- of assaulting them. By definition, gun-control laws should make weapons scarcer and thus more expensive. By our prior reasoning about demand among various types of consumers, after the laws are enacted criminals should be better armed, compared with non criminals, than they were before. Of course, plenty of noncriminals will remain armed. But even if many noncriminals will pay as high a price as criminals will to obtain firearms, a larger number will not.
Criminals will thus still take the same gamble they already take in assaulting a victim who might or might not be armed. But they may appreciate that the laws have given them a freer field, and that crime still pays -- pays even better, in fact, than before. What will happen to the rate of violence? Only a relatively few gun-mediated transactions -- currently, five percent of armed robberies committed with firearms -- result in someone's actually being shot (the statistics are not broken down into encounters between armed assailants and unarmed victims, and encounters in which both parties are armed). It seems reasonable to fear that if the number of such transactions were to increase because criminals thought they faced fewer deterrents, there would be a corresponding increase in shootings. Conversely, if gun-mediated transactions declined -- if criminals initiated fewer of them because they feared encountering an armed victim or an armed good Samaritan -- the number of shootings would go down. The magnitude of these effects is, admittedly, uncertain. Yet it is hard to doubt the general tendency of a change in the law that imposes legal burdens on buying guns. The futility theorem suggests that gun-control laws, if effective at all, would unfavorably affect the rate of violent crime.
The futility theorem provides a lens through which to see much of the debate. It is undeniable that gun-control laws work -- to an extent. Consider, for example, California's background-check law, which in the past two years has prevented about 12,000 people with a criminal record or a history of mental illness or drug abuse from buying handguns. In the same period Illinois's background-check prevented the delivery of firearms to more than 2,000 people. Surely some of these people simply turned to an illegal market, but just as surely not all of them did. The laws of large numbers allow to say that among the foiled thousands, some potential killers were prevented from getting a gun. We do not know whether the number is large or small, but it is implausible to think it is zero. And, as gun-control proponents are inclined to say, "If only one life is saved..."
The hypothesis that firearms increase violence does predict that if we can slow down the diffusion of guns, there will be less violence; one life, or more, will be saved. But the futility theorem asks that we look not simply at the gross number of bad actors prevented from getting guns but at the effect the law has on all the people who want to buy a gun. Suppose we succeed in piling tax burdens on the acquisition of firearms. We can safely assume that a number of people who might use guns to kill will be sufficiently discouraged not to buy them. But we cannot assume this about people who feel that they must have guns in order to survive financially and physically. A few lives might indeed be saved. But the overall rate of violent crime might not go down at all. And if guns are owned predominantly by people who have good reason to think they will use them, the rate might even go up.
Are there empirical studies that can serve to help us choose between the futility theorem and the hypothesis that guns increase violence? Unfortunately, no: the best studies of the effects of gun-control laws are quite inconclusive. Our statistical tools are too weak to allow us to identify an effect clearly enough to persuade an open-minded skeptic. But it is precisely when we are dealing with undetectable statistical effects that we have to be certain we are using the best models of human behavior.
Sealing the border
Handguns are not legally for sale in the city of Chicago, and have not been since April of 1982. Rifles, shotguns, and ammunition are available, but only to people who possess an Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification card. It takes up to a month to get this card, which involves a background check. Even if one has a FOID card there is a waiting period for the delivery of a gun. In few places in America is it as difficult to get a firearm legally as in the city of Chicago.
Yet there are hundreds of thousands of unregistered guns in the city, and new ones arriving all the time. It is not difficult to get handguns -- even legally. Chicago residents with FOID cards merely go to gun shops in the suburbs. Trying to establish a city as an island of prohibition in a sea of legal firearms seems an impossible project.
Is a state large enough to be an effective island, then? Suppose Illinois adopted Chicago's handgun ban. Same problem again. Some people could just get guns elsewhere: Indiana actually borders the city, and Wisconsin is only forty miles away. Though federal law prohibits the sale of handguns in one state to residents of another, thousands of Chicagoans with summer homes in other states could buy handguns there. And, of course, a black market would serve the needs of other customers.
When would the island be large enough to sustain a weapons-free environment? In the United States people and cargoes move across state lines without supervision or hindrance. Local shortages of goods are always transient, no matter whether the shortage is induced by natural disasters, prohibitory laws, or something else.
Even if many states outlaws sales of handguns, then, they would continue to be available at a somewhat higher price, reflecting the increased legal risk of selling them. Mindful of the way markets work to undermine their efforts, gun-control proponents press for federal regulation of firearms, because they believe that only Congress wields the authority to frustrate the interstate movement of firearms.
Why, though, would one think that federal policing of illegal firearms would be better than local policing? The logic of that argument is far from clear. Cities, after all, are comparatively small places. Washington, DC, for example, has an area of less than 45,000 acres. Yet local officers have had little luck repressing the illegal firearms trade there. Why should federal officers do any better watching the United States' 12,000 miles of coastline and millions of square miles of interior? Criminals should be able to frustrate federal police forces just as well as they can local ones. Ten years of increasingly stringent federal efforts to abate cocaine trafficking, for example, have not succeeded in raising the street price of the drug.
Consider the most drastic proposal currently in play, that of Senator John Chafee, of Rhode Island, who would ban the manufacture, sale, and home possession of handguns within the United States. This proposal goes far beyond even the Chicago law, because existing weapons would have to be surrendered. Handguns would become contraband, and selling counterfeit, stolen, and contraband goods is big business in the United States. The objective of law enforcement is to raise the costs of engaging in crime and so force criminals to take expensive precautions against becoming entangled with the legal system. Crimes of a given type will, in theory, decline as soon as the direct and indirect costs of engaging in them rise to the point at which criminals seek more profitable opportunities in other (not necessarily legal) lines of work.
In firearms regulation, translating theory into practice will continue to be difficult, at least if the objective is to lessen the practical availability of firearms to people who might abuse them. On the demand side, for defending oneself against predation there is no substitute for a firearm. Criminals, at least, can switch to varieties of law-breaking in which a gun confers little to no advantage (burglary, smash-and-grab), but people who are afraid of confrontations with criminals, whether rationally or (as an accountant might reckon it) irrationally, will be very highly motivated to acquire firearms. Long after the marijuana and cocaine wars of this century have been forgotten, people's demand for personal security and for the tools they believe provide it will remain strong.
On the supply side, firearms transactions can be consummated behind closed doors. Firearms buyers, unlike those who use drugs, pornography, or prostitution, need not recurrently expose themselves to legal jeopardy. One trip to the marketplace is enough to arm oneself for life. This could justify a consumer's taking even greater precautions to avoid apprehension, which would translate into even steeper enforcement costs for police.
Don Kates, Jr, a San Francisco lawyer and a much-published student of this problem, has pointed out that during the wars in Southeast and Southwest Asia local artisans were able to produce, from scratch, serviceable pot-metal counterfeits of AK-47 infantry rifles and similar weapons in makeshift backyard foundries. Although inferior weapons cannot discharge thousands of rounds without misfiring, they are more than deadly enough for light to medium service, especially by criminals and people defending themselves and their property, who ordinarily use firearms by threatening with them, not by firing them. And the skills necessary to make them are certainly as widespread in America as in the villages of Pakistan or Vietnam. Effective policing of such a cottage industry is unthinkable. Indeed, as Charles Chandler has pointed out, crude but effective firearms have been manufactured in prisons -- highly supervised environments, compared with the outside world.
Seeing that local firearms restrictions are easily defeated, gun-control proponents have latched onto national controls as a way of finally making gun control something more than a gesture. But the same forces that have defeated local regulation will defeat further national regulation. Imposing higher costs on weapons ownership will, of course, slow down the weapons trade to some extent. But planning to slow it down in such a way as to drive down crime and violence, or to prevent motivated purchasers from finding ample supplies of guns and ammunition, is an escape from reality. And like many other such, it entails a morning after.
Administering prohibition
Assume for the sake of argument that to a reasonable degree of criminological certainty, guns are every bit the public-health hazard they are said to be. It follows, and many journalists and a few public officials have already said, that we ought to treat guns the same we do smallpox viruses or other critical vectors of morbidity and mortality -- namely, isolate them from potential hosts and destroy them as speedily as possible. Clearly, firearms have at least one characteristic that distinguishes them from smallpox viruses: nobody wants to keep smallpox viruses in the nightstand drawer. Amazingly enough, gun-control literature seems never to have explored the problem of getting weapons away from people who very much want to keep them in the nightstand drawer.
Our existing gun-control laws are not uniformly permissive, and, indeed, in certain places are tough even by international standards. Advocacy groups seldom stress the considerable differences among American jurisdictions, and media reports regularly assert that firearms are readily available to anybody anywhere in the country. This is not the case. For example, handgun restrictions in Chicago and the District of Columbia are much less flexible than the ones in the United Kingdom. Several hundred thousand British subjects may legally buy and possess sidearms, and anyone who joins a target-shooting club is eligible to do so. But in Chicago and the District of Columbia, excepting peace officers and the like, only grandfathered registrants may legally possess handguns. Of course, tens or hundreds of thousands of people in both those cities -- nobody can be sure how many -- do in fact possess them illegally.
Although though is, undoubtedly, illegal handgun ownership in the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland (where considerations of personal security and public safety are decidedly unlike those elsewhere in the British Isles), it is probable that Americans and Britons differ in their disposition to obey gun-control laws: there is reputed to be a marked national disparity in compliance behavior. This difference, if it exists, may have something to do with the comparatively marginal value of firearms to British consumers. Even before it had strict firearms regulation, Britain had very low rates of crimes involving guns; British criminals, unlike their American counterparts, prefer burglary (a crime of stealth) to robbery (a crime of intimidation).
Unless people are prepared to surrender their guns voluntarily, how can the US government confiscate an appreciable fraction of our country's nearly 200 million privately owned firearms? We know that it is possible to set up weapons-free zones in certain locations -- commercial airports and many courthouses and, lately, some troubled big-city high schools and housing projects. The sacrifices of privacy and convenience, and the costs of paying guards, have been though worth the (perceived) gain in security. No doubt it would be possible, though it would probably not be easy, to make weapons-free zones of shopping centers, department stores, movie theaters, ball parks. But it is not obvious how one would cordon off the whole of an open society.
Voluntary programs have been ineffectual. From time to time community-action groups or police departments have sponsored "turn in your gun" days, which are nearly always disappointing. Sometimes the government offers to buy guns at some price. This approach has been endorsed by Senator Chafee and the Los Angeles Times. Jonathan Alter, of Newsweek, has suggested a variation on this theme: youngsters could exchange their guns for a handshake with Michael Jordan or some other sports hero. If the price offered exceeds that at which a gun can be bought on the street, one can expect to see plans of this kind yield some sort of harvest -- as indeed they have. But it is implausible that these schemes will actually result in a less-dangerous population. Government programs to buy up surplus cheese cause more cheese to be produced without affecting the availability of cheese to people who want to buy it. So it is with guns.
One could extend the concept of intermittent roadblocks of the sort approved by the Supreme Court for discouraging drunk driving. Metal detectors could be positioned on every street corner, or ambulatory metal-detector squads could check people randomly, or hidden magnetometers could be installed around towns, to detect concealed weapons. As for firearms kept in homes (about half of American households), warrantless searches might be rationalized on the well-established theory that probable cause is not required when authorities are trying to correct dangers to public safety rather than searching for evidence of a crime.
In a recent "town hall" meeting in California, President Bill Clinton used the word "sweeps," which he did not define, to describe how he would confiscate firearms if it were up to him. During the past few years the Chicago Housing Authority chairman, Vincent Lane, has ordered "sweeps" of several gang-ridden public-housing projects, meaning warrantless searches of people's homes by uniformed police officers looking for contraband. Lane's ostensible premise was that possession of firearms by tenants constituted a lease violation that, as a conscientious landlord, he was obliged to do something about. The same logic could justify any administrative search. City health inspectors in Chicago were recently authorized to conduct warrantless searches for lead hazards in residential paint. Why not lead hazards in residential closets and nightstands? Someone has probably already thought of it.
Ignoring the ultimate sources of crime and violence
The American experience with prohibition has been that black marketeers -- often professional criminals -- move in to profit when legal markets are closed down or disturbed. In order to combat them, new laws and law-enforcement techniques are developed, which are circumvented almost as soon as they are put in place. New and yet more stringent laws are enacted, and greater sacrifices of civil liberties and privacy demanded and submitted to. But in this case the problem, crime and violence, will not go away, because guns and ammunition (which, of course, won't go away either) do not cause it. One cannot expect people to quit seeking new weapons as long as the tactical advantages of weapons are seen to outweigh the costs imposed by the prohibition. Nor can one expect large numbers of people to surrender firearms they already own. The only way to make people give up their guns is to create a world in which guns are perceived as having little value. This world will come into being when criminals choose not to use guns because the penalties for being caught with them are too great, and when ordinary citizens don't think they need firearms because they aren't afraid of criminals anymore.
Neither of these eventualities seems very likely without substantial departures in law-enforcement policy. Politicians' nostrums -- increasing the punishment for crime, slapping a few more death-penalty provisions into the code -- are taken seriously by few students of the crime problem. The existing penalties for predatory crimes are quite severe enough. The problem is that they are rarely meted out in the real world. The penalties formally published by the code are in practice steeply discounted, and criminals recognize that the judicial and penal systems cannot function without bargaining in the vast majority of cases.
This problem is not obviously one that legislation could solve. Constitutional ideas about due process of law make the imposition of punishments extraordinarily expensive and difficult. Like the tax laws, the criminal laws are basically voluntary affairs. Our system isn't geared to a world of wholesale disobedience. Recalibrating the system simply by increasing its overall harshness would probably offend and then shock the public long before any of its benefits were felt.
To illustrate, consider the prospect of getting serious about carrying out the death penalty. In recent years executions have been running at one or two dozen a year. As the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart observed, those selected to die constitute a "capriciously selected random handful" taken from a much larger number of men and women who, just as deserving of death, receive prison sentences. It is not easy to be exact about that much larger number. But as an educated guess, taking into account only the most serious murders -- the ones that were either premeditated or committed in the course of a dangerous felony -- there are perhaps 5,000 prisoners a year who could plausibly be executed in the United States: say, 100,000 executions in the next twenty years. It is hard to think that the death penalty, if imposed on this scale, would not noticeably change the behavior of potential criminals. But what else in national life or citizens' character would have to change in order to make that many executions acceptable? Since 1930 executions in the United States have never exceeded 200 a year. At any such modest rate of imposition, rational criminals should consider the prospect of receiving the death penalty effectively nil. On the best current evidence, indeed, they do. Documentation of the deterrent effect of the death penalty, as compared with that of long prison sentences, has been notoriously hard to produce.
The problem is not simply that criminals pay little attention to the punishments in the books. Nor is it even that they also know that for the majority of crimes, their chances of being arrested are small. The most important reason for criminals behavior is this: the income that offenders can earn in the world of crime, as compared with the world of work, all too often makes crime appear to be the better choice.
Thus the crime bill that Bill Clinton introduced last year, which provides for more prisons and police officers, should be of only very limited help. More prisons means that fewer violent offenders will have to be released early in order to make space for new arrivals; perhaps fewer plea bargains will have to be struck -- all to the good. Yet a moment's reflection should make clear that one more criminal locked up does not necessarily mean one less criminal on the street. The situation is very like one that conservationists and hunters have always understood. Populations of game animals readily recover from hunting seasons but not from loss of habitat. Means streets, when there are few legitimate entry-level opportunities for young men, are a criminal habitat, so to speak, in the social ecology of modern American cities. Cull however much one will, the habitat will be preoccupied promptly after its previous occupant is sent away. So social science has found.
Similarly, whereas increasing the number of police officers cannot hurt, and may well increase people's subjective feelings of security, there is little evidence to suggest that doing so will diminish the rate of crime. Police forces are basically reactive institutions. At any realistically sustainable level of staffing they must remain so. Suppose 100,000 officers were added to police fosters nationwide, as proposed in the current crime bill. This would amount to an overall personnel increase of about 18 percent, which would be parceled out according to the iron laws of democratic politics -- distributed through states and congressional districts -- rather than being sent to the areas that most need relief. Such an increase, though unprecedented in magnitude, is far short of what would be needed to pacify some of our country's worst urban precincts.
There is a challenge here that is quiet beyond being met with tough talk. Most public officials can see the mismatch between their tax base and the social entropies they are being asked to repair. There simply isn't enough money; existing public resources, as they are now employed, cannot possibly solve the crime problem. But mayors and senators and police chiefs must not say so out loud: too-disquieting implications would follow. For if the authorities are incapable of restoring public safety and personal security under the existing ground rules, then obviously the ground rules must change, to give private initiative greater scope. Self-help is the last refuge of non scoundrels.
Communities must, in short, organize more effectively to protect themselves against predators. No doubt this means encouraging properly qualified private citizens to possess and carry firearms legally. It is not morally tenable -- nor, for that matter, is it even practical -- to insist that police officers, few of whom are at a risk remotely as great as are the residents of many city neighborhoods, retain a monopoly on legal firearms. It is needless to fear giving honest men and women the training and equipment to make it possible for them to take back their own streets.
Over the long run, however, there is no substitute for addressing the root causes of crime -- bad education and lack of job opportunities and the disintegration of families. Root causes are much out of fashion nowadays as explanations of criminal behavior, but fashionable or not, they are fundamental. The root cause of crime is that for certain people, predation is a rational occupational choice. Conventional crime-control measures, which by stiffening punishments or raising the probability of arrest aim to make crime pay less, cannot consistently affect the behavior of people who believe that their alternatives to crime will pay virtually nothing. Young men who did not learn basic literacy and numeracy skills before dropping out of their wretched public schools may not have been worth hiring at the minimum wage set by George Bush, let alone at the higher, indexed minimum wage that has recently been under discussion by the Clinton Administration. Most independent studies of the effects of raising minimum wages show a similar pattern of excluding the most vulnerable. This displacement, in turn, makes young men free, in the nihilistic, nothing-to-lose sense, to dedicate their lives to crime. Their legitimate opportunities, as always precarious in a society where race and class still matter, often diminish to the point of being for all intents and purposes absent.
Unfortunately, many progressive policies work out in the same way as increases in the minimum wage -- as taxes on employment. One example is the Administration's pending proposal to make employer-paid health insurance mandatory and universal. Whatever the undoubted benefits of the plan, a payroll tax is needed to make it work. Another example: in recent years the use of the "wrongful discharge" tort and other legal innovations has swept through the courts of more than half the states, bringing to an end the era of "employment at will," when employees (other than civil servants) without formal contracts -- more than three quarters of the workforce -- could be fired for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. Most commentators celebrated the loss of the at-will rule. How could one object to a new legal tenet that prohibited only arbitrary and oppressive behavior by employers?
But the costs of the rule are not negligible, only hidden. At-will employment meant that companies could get out of the relationship as easily as employees could. In a world where dismissals are expensive rather than cheap, and involve lawyers and the threat of lawsuits, rational employers must become more fastidious about whom they hire. By raising the costs of ending the relationship, one automatically raises the threshold of entry. The burdens of the rule fall unequally. Worst hit are entry-level applicants who have little or no employment history to show that they would be worth their pay.
Many other tax or regulatory schemes, in the words of Professor Walter Williams, of George Mason University, amount to sawing off the bottom rungs of the ladder of economic opportunity. By suppressing job creation and further diminishing legal employment opportunities for young men on the margin of the work force, such schemes amount to an indirect but unequivocal subsidy to crime.
The solution to the problem of crime lies in improving the chances of young men. Easier said than done, to be sure. No one has yet proposed a convincing program for checking all the dislocating forces that government assistance can set in motion. One relatively straightforward change would be reform of the educational system. Nothing guarantees prudent behavior like a sense of the future, and with average skills in reading, writing, and math, young people can realistically look forward to constructive employment and the straight life that steady work makes possible.
But firearms are nowhere near the root of the problem of violence. As long as people come in unlike sizes, shapes, ages, and temperaments, as long as they diverge in their taste for risk and their willingness and capacity to prey on other people or to defend themselves from predation, and above all as long as some people have little or nothing to lose by spending their lives in crime, dispositions to violence will persist.
This is what makes the case for the right to bear arms, not the Second Amendment. It is foolish to let anything ride on hopes for effective gun control. As long as crime pays as well as it does, we will have plenty of it, and honest folk must choose between being victims and defending themselves.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233631 - 01/20/03 08:51 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Thats a great point. The bill of rights was created to address INDIVIDUAL rights.
Or at least thats the way they taught it to me in school. ;p
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233681 - 01/20/03 09:10 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Hey, if you know the "intent" of the framers of the Constitution, I'm with you on this. I think the framers did an absolutely remarkable job with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I absolutely support the Constitution more than I support the current Government who seems to ignore it with things such as the Patriot Act. But if their intent was for "people" to own guns, why did they very specifically say "well regulated militia"??? It would be dumb of them to write something down that clearly differed from their intent, and I don't think they were dumb.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1233727 - 01/20/03 09:23 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
So you dont support the need to bear arms?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233732 - 01/20/03 09:27 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Jesus man, that was a long article, but great nonetheless. I think I'm going to have to save it.
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GazzBut]
#1233750 - 01/20/03 09:33 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So you dont support the need to bear arms?
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but personally I don't mind if people own guns. I believe in the saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I was just surprised at how weak the Constitutional argument is to own a gun.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233756 - 01/20/03 09:34 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
But if their intent was for "people" to own guns, why did they very specifically say "well regulated militia"??? It would be dumb of them to write something down that clearly differed from their intent
Excellent point. This is where the NRA argument collapses.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233757 - 01/20/03 09:35 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
You have to remember what time period that was in and the historical context within it was written. At the time, "militia" meant a non-government (indeed, the militias of that time had just finished overthrowing their government) group of fighting people. It still does have this meaning, but some try to redefine "militia" as meaning the Army or National Guard, which is certainly NOT what the framers meant.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233763 - 01/20/03 09:38 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well, if we have to take it in the context of the time in which it was written, one could argue that the right to bear arms only applies to the arms that existed back then. Everyone grab your muskets!
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233771 - 01/20/03 09:43 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"militia" meant a non-government (indeed, the militias of that time had just finished overthrowing their government) group of fighting people
In other words organised state and private armies - NOT individuals. Individuals are individuals, militias are militias. There is a difference. The founding fathers knew this, which is why they were very careful to include the clause about militias in the second amendment.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233773 - 01/20/03 09:43 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I completely agree with you on the defenition of militia. But I wonder what the founding fathers meant by "well regulated"?
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1233779 - 01/20/03 09:47 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Then what do you say about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?
|
JiminiCricket
member
Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 116
Loc: Ohio
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233787 - 01/20/03 09:50 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"militia" meant a non-government (indeed, the militias of that time had just finished overthrowing their government) group of fighting people
In other words organised state and private armies - NOT individuals. Individuals are individuals, militias are militias. There is a difference. The founding fathers knew this, which is why they were very careful to include the clause about militias in the second amendment.
The definition of tyranny during the revolution was a standing national army. The militia is the people. The second amendment want to people to be well regulated and well armed. It specifically clarifies what it means by militia by saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Since you're a Brit it's also worth noting that Lexington and Concord started off as a British gun grab.
--------------------
Molon Labe!
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1233790 - 01/20/03 09:51 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I just thought I should mention that the right of the people to keep and bear arms doesn't mean they can own ANY kind of arms. People shouldn't be carrying around machine guns and bazookas.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
The second amendment want to people to be well regulated and well armed.
Nah, I don't buy it. And neither does pretty much every legal expert in America. Otherwise the Supreme court and federals court wouldn't be so heavily against the NRA's interpretation.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233814 - 01/20/03 09:59 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Now that you're back to the Supreme Court, Alex, you never responded to my request:
Provide us with a Supreme Court ruling that says the Second Amendment is not a personal right.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
I just thought I should mention that the right of the people to keep and bear arms doesn't mean they can own ANY kind of arms.
Of course if the idea was that individuals should be able to fight off tyranny then small arms would be utterly useless nowadays anyway. Individuals would need anti-aircraft missiles and tanks at the very least to trouble any tyranny.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (01/20/03 10:02 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233818 - 01/20/03 10:00 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I hope that this post puts the Constitution argument to rest. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to determine what the Government cannot do in terms of restricting certain rights of the People.
Amendment 1. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE
to worship as they wish, express themselves, and gather peaceably.
Amendment 2. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE
to arm themselves for their individual and collective protection.
NOT
Amendment 2. The army is allowed to have weapons.
moving along...
Amendment 3. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE
to be free from being forced to house soldiers (a common practise of the Brits).
Amendment 4. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE
to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure.
Amendment 5. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE
to not be required to incriminate themselves or be tried twice for the same crime.
Amendment 6. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE
to have a fair and speedy trial.
Amendment 7. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE
to have a fair trial in the case of civil suits, and again guarantees freedom from double jeapordy.
Amendment 8. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right of the PEOPLE
to be free from cruel and unusual punishment or excessive bail.
Amendment 9. states that just because a right isn't mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that the government is automatically ALLOWED to just take it away. Sort of an "including, but not limited to..." clause for the Bill of Rights. (the right to decide which chemicals you wish to put in your body anyone?  )
Amendment 10. Delegates to the states powers not reserved by the national government. (Internal commerce, etc.).
I can see how the word "militia" could throw people off... But "militia" meant, and has always meant, a non-government group of fighting men. Otherwise, it's called an Army. Does anyone really think that the framers thought that "The Army must be allowed to have weapons" was just so important that they needed to make a specific clause in the Bill of Rights about it? No, they meant the People. It is the purpose of the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the People, and restrict the powers of the Government. Clinging to the notion that they meant the Army and not the People is a demonstration of complete disregard for logic, reason, and common sense . If you want to attack gun-ownership on other grounds, fine, we can go there too, but this Bill of Rights argument is just too worn out.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233824 - 01/20/03 10:01 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly. You saw what happened in Waco despite the massive amounts of firepower those people had.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233840 - 01/20/03 10:05 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
non-government group of fighting men
Well it meant a little more than that. Me and my mate couldn't ride into town and start blasting everyone and call ourselves "militia". We would be called "criminals" and hung from the nearest tree. As would any individual who behaved like a state organised army.
No, they meant the People
We're back to ignoring what they wrote and imagining what they meant. Lets just look at what they wrote.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233853 - 01/20/03 10:08 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Lets just look at what they wrote.
Lets....why don't you post what they wrote, then give your interpretation.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233857 - 01/20/03 10:09 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Of course if the idea was that individuals should be able to fight off tyranny then small arms would be utterly useless nowadays anyway. Individuals would need anti-aircraft missiles and tanks at the very least to trouble any tyranny.
The North Vietnamese did very well with small arms fighting against the most powerful military in the world.
I remember that at least once in American history (and I really wish I could remember when and where, someone help?) the local police department got really out of hand, and the locals fought them off with their weapons.
Also... have you read that article yet? what do you think of it? You too silver soul...
Edited by mushmaster (01/20/03 10:11 AM)
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233864 - 01/20/03 10:10 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't have the attention span to read that article.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
Then you have no place even arguing here.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233871 - 01/20/03 10:13 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
We're back to ignoring what they wrote and imagining what they meant. Lets just look at what they wrote.
Alex, you are reading the words out of historical context and applying very recent and politically motivated interpretations of the terms. Please provide quotes from the founding fathers to back up your interpretations of the meanings of the words 'militia' and 'people' as they relate to the second amendment.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233872 - 01/20/03 10:14 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Are you saying that article is the only thing relevant in here? I'll get around to it, ok?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233889 - 01/20/03 10:17 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The idea behind the system that governs the United States is that The People have the power. They are in control. The founding fathers were not nearly as naive as you and understood that ultimately, power rests upon violence. It is a sad fact, but it is true. They were very specific about guaranteeing that the Government did not have a monopoloy on this last resort of self-determination. To preserve and make into law the right of the people to violently resist tyranny was their intent. Do you forget that these men were themselves revolutionaries?
|
shroomophile
ShroomitusFidelis
Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 762
Loc: USA
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233904 - 01/20/03 10:21 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It's really very simple.The right does exist,or the gov't would have already taken them long ago.The gov't will try to whittle the number of gun owners down til they think they can confiscate the rest.I guess the cowards will give up their guns.They will have to take mine.But what the hell,I'll be dead and won't be needing them.
--------------------
Once the mighty oak,was a nut who held his ground.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233906 - 01/20/03 10:21 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The founding fathers were not nearly as naive as you
I guess that's why they included the militia clause. Just to make sure no-one could ever be naive enough to assume they meant "every individual".
Do you forget that these men were themselves revolutionaries?
Has this anything to do with what they wrote in the second amendment?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
The right does exist,or the gov't would have already taken them long ago
Some right exists, it just isn't the second amendment.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233915 - 01/20/03 10:24 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Has this anything to do with what they wrote in the second amendment?
It has EVERYTHING to do with what they wrote in the second amendment.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233930 - 01/20/03 10:28 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
We're back to ignoring what they wrote and imagining what they meant. Lets just look at what they wrote.
Yes... lets look at what was wrote and said during those days by the men who wrote the constitution and also how it was interpreted by others in those days (and on that last note, please remember the first quote by Jefferson...)
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ? to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms?" - Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ?" - Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States ? Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." - Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ? It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
"? the people have a right to keep and bear arms." - Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1
"The Constitution shall never be construed ? to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
"A free people ought ? to be armed ?" - George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops?" - Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them ?" - George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers # 46 at 243-244
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, 3 Elliott, Debates at 386
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ? Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them ?" - Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion? in private self-defense ?" - John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ? and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
"The right of the people to keep and bear ? arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ?" - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1233931 - 01/20/03 10:29 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It has EVERYTHING to do with what they wrote in the second amendment.
So we're back to imagining what they theoretically might have meant because they were "revolutionaries".
Hitler was a revolutionary too.
I ask again, what does being a revolutionary have to do with the second amendment? Apart from wild imaginings of what they "really meant" rather than looking at what they wrote?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233934 - 01/20/03 10:29 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"But "militia" meant, and has always meant, a non-government group of fighting men. Otherwise, it's called an Army."
I completely agree.
"they meant the People"
No, they meant the "militia". And a "well regulated" one at that.
Rewriting the bill of rights into your own words, and saying that puts the issue to rest is kind of silly to me. Anyone can rewrite it into their own words. Personally, I think it should only be interpreted as is: "a well regulated militia".
I agree that militia does not mean Army or National Guard. It means "A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency." (dictionary.com) I don't think "the people" meets this definition.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233940 - 01/20/03 10:31 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I guess that's why they included the militia clause. Just to make sure no-one could ever be naive enough to assume they meant "every individual".
What comprises a militia? armed individuals. So how do you suppose we choose who is in the militia, and if they have guns and we don't, how do we protect ourselves if the militia turns?
Oh, and you never stated what you think the 2nd amendment says and your interpretation.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233941 - 01/20/03 10:32 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yes... lets look at what was wrote and said during those days by the men who wrote the constitution
But you're not looking at the second amendment are you. Maybe there were some founding fathers who were for gun ownership, it just isn't what they wrote in the second amendment. They very specifically included the phrase about a well-regulated militia. They weren't stupid - they did it for a reason.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233946 - 01/20/03 10:35 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on all of this...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233953 - 01/20/03 10:37 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
|
Bavet
Sensitive StonedRebel
Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 383
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233965 - 01/20/03 10:41 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
GUNS RULE! plain n simple you try to take mine and I'll make sure you end up dead. I wait for the day the gov comes to take my guns along with my life.
--------------------
"~Dream as if you'll live forever....live as if you'll die today~ James Dean"
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233974 - 01/20/03 10:44 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I have this friend Pete. Pete is one of the most stubborn people I know. He clings to his ideas like a raft in a storm. No matter what logic you present against his ideas, he just doesn't listen to you unless what you say validates his argument. He'll say something, and you can give him concrete, rational reasons why his argument is incorrect... he'll just keep trying. You can beat his argument anywhere he takes it, but he just won't let go. Even when everyone in the room says, "Pete, give it up, you're wrong!" he just keeps going on like the most stubborn guy you ever saw. It's actually kind of amusing to watch his arguments fail and him just falter and falter, but never change his mind. Pete isn't very smart and doesn't think for himself very well...
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1233978 - 01/20/03 10:45 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"? the people have a right to keep and bear arms." - Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185
"The Constitution shall never be construed ? to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them ?" - George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, 3 Elliott, Debates at 386
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
Lots of debating going on even back then. Seems that even back then, people didn't feel that arms belonged to everyone.
I think that no here would argue with the right of a militia to bear arms. I think the debate is whether or not "militia" is the same thing as "individual". But if that were the case, why use the word "militia"???
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1233988 - 01/20/03 10:49 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
And finally... even if Thomas Jefferson himself were to come back to life right now, log on to the Shroomery, and make a post saying "hey guys, you got it all wrong... We really DID mean that just the military and not the people could own guns!" I could still support my view that citizens should be allowed to own guns very well.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1234010 - 01/20/03 10:55 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Here are some more quotes... some are repeats...
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
-Thomas Paine.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-Patrick Henry.
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
-Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."
-John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms."
-Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison.
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1234012 - 01/20/03 10:56 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And finally... even if Thomas Jefferson himself were to come back to life right now, log on to the Shroomery, and make a post saying "hey guys, you got it all wrong... We really DID mean that just the military and not the people could own guns!" I could still support my view that citizens should be allowed to own guns very well.
I wouldn't argue with you on this. In fact, currently the poll shows everyone is in support of guns. The debate (at least in my opinion) is whether that is a constitutional right, which I don't think it is based on the words "a well regulated militia".
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1234014 - 01/20/03 10:56 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Excellent point. This is where the NRA argument collapses.
Alpo, why you see the need to keep lying about this is beyond me. Look up the definition of regulated at the time the 2nd was written... I'll save you the trouble... it meant well equiped. Even someone with your obvious lack of comprehension should be ablre to find it.
Since you have been provided with a multitude of links and references both to court decisions and writings by the framers and you still fail to grasp the obvious, I can only conclude you're being deliberately obtuse.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1234018 - 01/20/03 10:57 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nah, I don't buy it. And neither does pretty much every legal expert in America. Otherwise the Supreme court and federals court wouldn't be so heavily against the NRA's interpretation.
More lies Alpo, and you know it.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1234022 - 01/20/03 10:59 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered. "
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the !!people!! to keep and bear Arms, shall !!not!! be infringed.
Taken from.. http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html
It clearly states.. a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state..
AND
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
MAYBE they meant they were seperate. That would satisfy both arguements. We have a well regulated militia (national guard, police, etc.) and people have the right to bear arms (and protect themselves, as they very much should be able to.)
Makes sense to me.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1234024 - 01/20/03 11:01 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex, you are reading the words out of historical context and applying very recent and politically motivated interpretations of the terms. Please provide quotes from the founding fathers to back up your interpretations of the meanings of the words 'militia' and 'people' as they relate to the second amendment.
I don't blame you for asking but you know full well he won't and he can't. He'd rather keep telling the same old tired lies.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1234030 - 01/20/03 11:03 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I hear ya, stupid fucking cunts wanting to make guns illegal. It is Illegal to own a gun in Washington DC. Also, Washington, DC has the highest crime rate. I wonder why.
OJ Simpson's wife tried to get a gun, but she had to wait 5 days and by then she was murdered.
Outlaw the guns and only the outlaws will have them.
Edited by Dilauded (01/20/03 11:07 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1234044 - 01/20/03 11:08 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The 2nd Amendment Reads...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", the reason being that "a well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of freedom of the people. If there is any doubt as to the meaning of "militia" it can be inferred easily from this. It does mean a group of well armed and well trained citizens.
I believe that the amendment, if written in contemporary times with the same intent, would read
"Because the people must be able to effectively form groups useful in the resistance against tyranny, the right of the people to own weapons shall not be infringed"
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that it would say,
"The Army and National Guard, being necessary to secure the freedom of the people, shall be permitted to have weapons, but not the general population"
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Look up the definition of regulated at the time the 2nd was written... I'll save you the trouble... it meant well equiped.
Whoa. I just did an internet search and even back in the 18th century, "regulated" meant "regulated". Are you accusing someone of lying and then doing it yourself??? I need evidence for this one, because I couldn't find any.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
X.O
Fucktard
Registered: 11/20/02
Posts: 1,449
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Sinistar]
#1234047 - 01/20/03 11:09 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
I'm a huge idiot
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1234062 - 01/20/03 11:14 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The 2nd Amendment Reads...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", the reason being that "a well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of freedom of the people. If there is any doubt as to the meaning of "militia" it can be inferred easily from this. It does mean a group of well armed and well trained citizens.
I believe that the amendment, if written in contemporary times with the same intent, would read
"Because the people must be able to effectively form groups useful in the resistance against tyranny, the right of the people to own weapons shall not be infringed"
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that it would say,
"The Army and National Guard, being necessary to secure the freedom of the people, shall be permitted to have weapons, but not the general population"
I almost completely agree with you. Except your modern day interpretation ignores the "well regulated" part. How would that be translated?
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: X.O]
#1234070 - 01/20/03 11:16 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Gotta love that weapon
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Dilauded]
#1234076 - 01/20/03 11:18 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I don't want to outlaw guns, but there out to be limits on what kind of gun you can have. M-16's should not be in the hands of a bunch of angry, gun-loving rednecks.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
|
I agree with you there, and weapons like those are illegal for the regular citizen or redneck, i mean Southern Gentlemen. But if anybody really wants a guns like that, join the military and skies the limit.
Dilauded
|
Anonymous
|
|
I agree that there must be limits on the type of weapons that people are permitted to have. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, this was not as much of an issue because the most powerful weapons of the time were rifles and cannon. I don't think private citizens should be permitted to own and operate armed fighter jets. I also don't think that they should be permitted to own nuclear weapons. However, I think that an M-16 is not excessive. I think that small arms of any kind should be permitted.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: X.O]
#1234144 - 01/20/03 11:49 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Doesn't beat... The Raging Bull. .454 Casul BAAAM!!!
|
Anonymous
|
|
Would I be considered an angry gun-loving redneck, or a good friend of mine who has about 10 variations of the M-16? Neither of us have ever been convicted or even accused of any crime other than traffic violations. Neither of us are missing any teeth. Neither of us eat squirrel for dinner. Neither of us live in the back country. Neither of us have any anger managment problems, we're both fine upstanding citizens. We both just love to go to the range on a weekend and shoot assault rifles. Before you argue against something so passionately, try it so you know where the opposition is coming from.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1234242 - 01/20/03 12:34 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
.454 Casull has to be my favorite handgun round. Nothing quite beats shooting through a mature pine tree with a pistol 
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1234256 - 01/20/03 12:43 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rewriting the bill of rights into your own words, and saying that puts the issue to rest is kind of silly to me. Anyone can rewrite it into their own words. Personally, I think it should only be interpreted as is: "a well regulated militia".
A well-regulated Militia...
A question was posted to alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights the other day, regarding this phrase in the 2nd Amendment. Of the responses posted, two stood out as what I would consider "required reading". 8/30/99
Here's one...
> Q: How do the pro-gun people incorporate the clause well-regulated militia
> into the right for citizens in the US to arm themselves privately without
> belonging to a well-regulated militia?
A:
(posted by tpg's Scout - scout@monumental.com)
Simple. First let's look at what the 2nd states.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
OK, first we start off with a subordinate clause which states an opinion. This opinion is not a limitation upon the main clause but rather explains to the reader one of the many reasons for the main clause.
Further when we examine the main clause it is clear that the right to bear arms is that of the people, not the militia, and that this right is not subject to infringement.
OK, but aren't those people only those in the militia?
No, there is no restrictive language within the 2nd to state or even imply that the right of the people is limited to that subgroup of the people called the militia. If they had meant the militia, then they would have said militia. Nor is the people the same as the militia, the militia stems from the people (hence the need for an armed people) but is NOT the same as the people. It's like saying the army comes from the people. It does. However that is not the same as saying the people are the army, since the army is but a subgroup of the people.
Maybe it would be easier if we expressed it in another manner. Let's try the following sentence.
A well read electorate being necessary to the continuance of an informed election, the right of the people to have and read books shall not be limited.
Exact same grammar, just a substitution of different nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs and so on. Given the direct substitution the grammatical construction has not changed.
So tell me, reading that sentence, would you say that only those people that vote should or be allowed to have books. No, because you need to have books to become informed long before you vote, nor can you insure when that person will find it necessary to vote.
So is it with guns. We need an armed population of people from which militias can be formed in times of emergency. Without those armed people, no militia can be formed, thus could not maintain the security of the free state. In fact it tends to happen automatically when in crisis the powers of law and order become over extended or completely fail. Witness neighbors banning together to protect the remains of their homes from looters after a hurricane. Witness shop owners banning together to protect their stores from looting, rioting, and being subjected to being burned down during the LA riots. No one knows when this response will be necessary so it is important that people can ALWAYS response in an effective manner.
Further if we check the writings of the founding fathers it becomes quite clear that the people must retain the means to insure that any government they form remains subservient to their will, which can even mean the use of force to do so. After all they had just finished doing this to regain their liberty. So we see that an armed population insures that the government will listen to the will of the people, one way or another.
Finally, let's examine the BoR, it is a listing of individual rights to be protected from the government. It would be most odd to say to the government, you can't disarm they very people you require to be armed.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
chills420
Poo Pie Maker
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 354
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
I don't want to outlaw guns, but there out to be limits on what kind of gun you can have. M-16's should not be in the hands of a bunch of angry, gun-loving rednecks.
Like this 1?
Whats up with that why limit what we can own? Anyway there done out there they can't take them away. Only thing they can do is call them pre bans. Like mine in the pic
--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
OK, first we start off with a subordinate clause which states an opinion. This opinion is not a limitation upon the main clause but rather explains to the reader one of the many reasons for the main clause.
Almost true. It explains to the reader not "one of the many reasons", but the reason for the main clause.
You've convinced me to believe that so long as "a well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of a free state then people have a right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, if they have the intention of being a part of the "well regulated militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free state". But I would argue that a militia is NOT necessary for the security of a free state in today's day and age, due to the strength of our military. I realize this is debatable and probably best left as a subject for another thread.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
Edited by GoBlue! (01/20/03 02:26 PM)
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1234490 - 01/20/03 02:54 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't mean to imply that all gun owners are rednecks. What I meant by that comment is that it's dangerous for that much firepower to fall into the wrong hands.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1234492 - 01/20/03 02:55 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I need not convince you of anything. It is what it is. A right "of the people".
Whether it is one of many, or the only, it is and until the ammendment is changed or eliminated, it will remain a right "of the people".
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
It is far more dangerous for guns NOT to be in the right hands.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I liken the situation to cloning. Much opposition to cloning comes from the idea of what it might lead to if it falls into the wrong hands. Also, what do you mean by the "right hands"? You're telling me that the freedom or security of this nation rests on a bunch of guys going to the shooting range on weekends???
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
The right hands are those of freedom loving, law abiding citizens, believers in the constitution and bill of rights.
Quote:
You're telling me that the freedom or security of this nation rests on a bunch of guys going to the shooting range on weekends???
Hopefully it will never be necessary for it to come down to the citizens of this country to take up arms against the government, but if it ever does... these are the people who will be needed most. It will be a sad day indeed if that ever comes to pass.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
If the people were to rise up and overthrow the government, it would lead to anarchy, and anarchy leads to totalitarian states.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Sure, just like when we threw off the yoke known as England.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Good point. I should've considered that. However, it seems unlikely that these "gun-toting freedom-lovers" would organize in the way that the colonists did. I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but in order to avoid anarchy and ultimately dictatorship, there would have to be a high level of organization in those seeking to overthrow an oppressive regime.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
I need not convince you of anything. It is what it is. A right of the people ...until the ammendment is changed or eliminated, it will remain a right "of the people".
Ok, if you ignore the 1st part of the 2nd amendment then you are correct. But be aware that if a law were ever passed that banned guns, and this law were challenged based on the 2nd amendment, I think it would be wrong to believe that the courts would ignore the first part of the amendment.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1234806 - 01/20/03 05:22 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I believe that the amendment, if written in contemporary times with the same intent, would read
"Because the people must be able to effectively form groups useful in the resistance against tyranny, the right of the people to own weapons shall not be infringed"
That ignores the "well regulated" statement. How about this interpretation:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State"
I think this says exactly the same thing, but is worded in a way that might make it easier to interpret.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
It's really very simple.The right does exist,or the gov't would have already taken them long ago.
Yes, you are 100% correct on this. But is it a Constitutional right?
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
I need not convince you of anything.
Good job cos you couldn't convince a 2 year old with your childish "arguments" so far.
It is what it is. A right "of the people".
In your mind perhaps. Not in the mind of every legal expert who advises the supreme and federals courts. Do we trust you or the the legal experts. Hard decision but i think i'll go with the experts 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1235086 - 01/20/03 07:38 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'll belly up to the bar on this one.
Fact is there are a lot of idiots running around calling themselves and being called by others "experts". And fact is, it just ain't so. A passage from "Looking Out for Number 1" is instructive:
"On and on they go, and where they stop nobody knows. Throughout history, experts have been intimidating people into making plans based on their scientific predictions for the future. But the future is arriving so fast these days-proving the experts wrong more quickly than in the past-that only a fool would rely blindly on the forecasts of an expert.
How does expert intimidation affect your life? Do you purposely eat a big breakfast because the experts have hammered home to you that it's essential to good health? A couple of experts-doctors, in fact-have concluded that a big breakfast is actually unhealthy because, among other things, it supplies unneeded calories, sets the fat-depositing, insulin-glucagon machinery in motion, can cause a craving for more starchy foods, and causes the blood to shift to the intestines at the expense of the brain and muscles.
Do experts have you worried over the energy shortage? I'll introduce you to other experts who don't think the energy situation is of crisis proportions or don't believe it's a problem that can't be solved with relative ease. Your plumber says you need a whole new faucet unit? I'll get you one who will assure you it's only necessary to insert a screw in the old unit. You're staying in a bad marriage because a marriage counselor has told you that the "right" thing to do is to work it out? I'll find you one who will tell you that it is more practical to cut the chain and start fresh. Are you shying away from a favorite food because a scientist has proven it causes cancer in worms? With a little searching, I'll find one who claims it's the healthiest food you can eat.
Face it: "experts" don't have all the answers! At best, experts are people who are knowledgeable, but not infallible. And the best ones will admit that openly. Kick the expert habit; don't make decisions based solely on the opinions of a purported expert. By all means, listen to what he has to say, but weigh it against your reasoning power. Then make your final decisions accordingly. No expert can hold you captive against your will."
There are studies and statistics on both sides of this argument. I am sure your intentions are well meant but that doesn't alter the fact that there are no good arguments for denying someone the ability to defend themselves.
I have been to your country and I was amazed at how civil people were. When I was touring England I was impressed at how the cars would dim their bright headlights before they rounded a curve if they saw an oncoming car. Here in the US people blind you with their bright headlights as they pass you on the road in a straight-away.
Perhaps in your nieghborhood you do not need a gun to protect the ones you love. I can assure you that where I live it is necessary. That being the case I will keep my weapons. You may do as you wish.
And for those of you who support our President AND guns, here's a prediction.
When his re-election comes up in 2004 and the sunset clause sets on the Assault Weapons ban he will sign the bill to renew it, probably forever. He, along with most policicians, will do what is in HIS best interest, getting re-elected!
Peace, and while you're at it pass me some armour-piercing ammo!
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1235145 - 01/20/03 08:38 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If you perceive it as absolutely neccessary for you to have a weapon in your neighbourhood how may people have you had to shoot?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1235174 - 01/20/03 09:25 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Good job cos you couldn't convince a 2 year old with your childish "arguments" so far.
I had you pegged at least three years old Alpo.
So let's see, someone who takes the time to at least look things up is childish... what would you call someone who spouts the same old lies over and over despite having been provided with all the info needed?
I can just imagine your childhood.....
Mompo: Alpo, why is your hand in the cookie jar?
Alpo: Golly Mom, you ignorant shit, it's not my hand.
Mompo: But it's attached to your arm.
Alpo: Are you stupid or something? I said it's not my hand!
Mompo: But Alpo, I can see the evidence.
Alpo: Fuck you! Are you blind as well as stupid?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
|
Quote:
Mompo
Classic
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
carbonhoots
old hand
Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
|
Quote:
I had you pegged at least three years old Alpo.
Double dog food on you.
JOIN THE NATIONAL ASSHOLE ASSOCIATION
--------------------
-I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me
CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
jdm
Registered: 01/16/03
Posts: 18
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1235244 - 01/20/03 11:23 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
OK, first we start off with a subordinate clause which states an opinion. This opinion is not a limitation upon the main clause but rather explains to the reader one of the many reasons for the main clause.
Almost true. It explains to the reader not "one of the many reasons", but the reason for the main clause.
You've convinced me to believe that so long as "a well regulated militia" is necessary for the security of a free state then people have a right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, if they have the intention of being a part of the "well regulated militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free state". But I would argue that a militia is NOT necessary for the security of a free state in today's day and age, due to the strength of our military. I realize this is debatable and probably best left as a subject for another thread.
You don't quite understand the Contitution or the history of the united States. It is very obvious from that statement. The whole point of bearing arms is not to protect yourself from riots, thef, or someone breaking into your house. It is to protect you FROM THE GOVERNMENT, period. The military is part of the government. So yes, militias and the right to bear arms IS necessary for the security of a free state.
I don't care how great an army is. Bring it into a city or a good sized town and see how long that army lasts. Urban warfare is not a pretty picture for the invaders.
|
shroomophile
ShroomitusFidelis
Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 762
Loc: USA
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1235251 - 01/20/03 11:35 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yes it is.Lets do a little detective work.Back to the good old Bill of Rights.
#1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
#2:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#4:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
#9:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
#10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now who among you argues the first ,fourth,ninth and tenth does not apply to the people.The rights of the people are very well laid out.The people are used in the same context in the second.I find it highly unlikely that the founders meant anything other than the right of the people.
--------------------
Once the mighty oak,was a nut who held his ground.
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: jdm]
#1235313 - 01/21/03 01:25 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You don't quite understand the Contitution or the history of the united States. It is very obvious from that statement. The whole point of bearing arms is not to protect yourself from riots, thef, or someone breaking into your house. It is to protect you FROM THE GOVERNMENT, period.
If that's true, then you're absolutely correct - I don't quite understand the Constitution or the history of the United States. Show some evidence that what you just said is true, and I'll side with you. But I'll bet you can't back that statement up.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Now who among you argues the first ,fourth,ninth and tenth does not apply to the people? The rights of the people are very well laid out.The people are used in the same context in the second. I find it highly unlikely that the founders meant anything other than the right of the people.
I agree. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. It's not a question of the right of the people to bear arms, it's a question of why this right was given - because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. What does that mean exactly? I think that's the question that must be answered.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
I had you pegged at least three years old Alpo.
You cheeky monkey luvvie.
So let's see, someone who takes the time to at least look things up is childish
If you do, great. You just never post like you do. You're still relying on one renegade decision (that quickly got usurped by other cases) in the face of dozens of other cases to the contrary.
It's not me you need to convince luvvie, it's every legal expert advising the supreme court and the federals court. Even the NRA darn't put the second amendment to the test in a court of law.
I can just imagine your childhood.....
Careful. You'll make another one of your "mistakes" and start calling me "gay" cos I don't agree with you soon. And you know what an unholy clusterfuck you got yourself into with that last time
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1235573 - 01/21/03 04:02 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Al... I'm real sorry man, but I just can't argue with you anymore. I thought that maybe after presenting completely solid points to back up my argument, that an open-minded, rational person, opposed to it would at least consider that my argument may indeed be correct. You could claim that the Atlantic Ocean did not exist, and I could show it to you, and you'd still say that it doesn't exist, right after you got done swimming in it. It's actually quite comical to read how absurd your posts are... but I'm just fed up with trying to argue with you. You've already been taught by someone what you believe, and you're ability to examine evidence and arrive at a conclusion on your own is very clearly lacking. You're imprisoned by your beliefs. FREE YOUR MIND.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1235579 - 01/21/03 04:06 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What are you talking about man? I am simply stating the Supreme court and federal courts view. It's got nothing to do with me ok? It's what every legal expert in american law thinks. If you can't deal with that ok, but don't try and make out it's my fault that the american courts don't agree with you.
Ok?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
chills420
Poo Pie Maker
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 354
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
The right hands are those of freedom loving, law abiding citizens, believers in the constitution and bill of rights.
Quote:
You're telling me that the freedom or security of this nation rests on a bunch of guys going to the shooting range on weekends???
Hopefully it will never be necessary for it to come down to the citizens of this country to take up arms against the government, but if it ever does... these are the people who will be needed most. It will be a sad day indeed if that ever comes to pass.
Some of us are just more prepared than others. If this was to ever happen do you wonder where all these anti gun people will go?
I for 1 wouldn't want to fight the government but if need be i'd do my part.
if that means draging out a case of Ak's and handing them out so be it.
If the shit ever hits the fan though I know I'm armed locked and loaded. I may have more guns than a small pawn shop but yet I've never assulted anyone nor used a gun to strike fear into someone. I never plan on doing this. Guns are not made to make ur balls bigger or u any tougher. If I point a gun odds are i'm gona shoot what i'm pointing at. i don't play these games of acting like a bad ass or a gangster People like that are the main reason to own a gun.
As for using gas on us I also own gas masks lol
Got kevlar to. Flash bangs don't bother me i was trained n the army they blow them up beside you.
So if you can't gas us, shoot us, or disorent us,
What do you have?
Basicly a home grown vietnam inside the borders of the US
I'll be damned if I sit back and watch this country go to shit. I'd die laying in a puddle of my blood b4 it happens.
You're telling me that the freedom or security of this nation rests on a bunch of guys going to the shooting range on weekends???
Pretty much and let it be know those guys on the shooting range prob have a better chance than a army would.
Most of those guys are vets or kids that grew up in a millitary style home.
--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GazzBut]
#1235637 - 01/21/03 04:35 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you perceive it as absolutely neccessary for you to have a weapon in your neighbourhood how may people have you had to shoot?
The answer to that would be, none. It is enough for them to know that I have one and am not afraid to use it. You do understand that concept, don't you?
Peace
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1235649 - 01/21/03 04:39 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Al... I'm real sorry man, but I just can't argue with you anymore. I thought that maybe after presenting completely solid points to back up my argument, that an open-minded, rational person, opposed to it would at least consider that my argument may indeed be correct. You could claim that the Atlantic Ocean did not exist, and I could show it to you, and you'd still say that it doesn't exist, right after you got done swimming in it. It's actually quite comical to read how absurd your posts are... but I'm just fed up with trying to argue with you. You've already been taught by someone what you believe, and you're ability to examine evidence and arrive at a conclusion on your own is very clearly lacking. You're imprisoned by your beliefs. FREE YOUR MIND.
Well I can see that we all have learned something here.
For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Francis Bacon
I enjoyed your posts. They were informative, interesting, and well-written.
Thanks.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: chills420]
#1235656 - 01/21/03 04:41 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I thought I should clear this up: Advocating gun CONTROL does not make you anti-gun. It just means putting regulations on what kinds of guns people can have and who should be allowed to have them. I don't think anyone here actually wants to get rid of ALL guns.
Hell, if the situation arose where the government became intolerably dictatorial, I'd probably start arming myself and preparing for revolution, except for the fact that I could instead choose to go to Canada as a refugee. I would then buy a gun there(yes, they have guns in Canada, too), and if the U.S. invaded Canada, I'd be waiting for them.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Edited by silversoul7 (01/21/03 04:45 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1235673 - 01/21/03 04:47 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What are you talking about man? I am simply stating the Supreme court and federal courts view. It's got nothing to do with me ok? It's what every legal expert in american law thinks. If you can't deal with that ok, but don't try and make out it's my fault that the american courts don't agree with you.
Ok?
Come now Alex, are you trying for death by hyperbole or Argumentum ad verecundiam? Do you seriously think that "every legal "expert" in american law" is on your side? Do you want me to find an opinion to contradict your assumption? And what will you say when I do? They are not an "expert". The concept itself is risible.
Carry on
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1235683 - 01/21/03 04:51 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well put.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1235705 - 01/21/03 04:59 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I am simply stating the Supreme court and federal courts view.
It's what every legal expert in american law thinks.
Care to back these claims up? EVERY expert? Come on... I think that the courts aren't as favored towards your argument as you'd like to believe. Nonetheless, there is some truth to the fact that the courts have decided in some cases against the Second Amendment. But to say that EVERY legal expert in american law also feels this way (and I believe that in reality they are divided on this one), is really a stretch. You keep talking about these court decisions and these legal experts, and everytime, someone in this forum says, "back that up Alex", and you never do. Back it up. I'd like to add however that regardless what the courts have said, you should also remember that the courts upheld slavery, they upheld segregation, and they upheld the notion that women could not vote. Is same sex marriage wrong because the courts have ruled against it? These courts you speak of are politically charged bodies of elected men and women. They make decisions about politically charged issues, like gun control, and the decisions they make are more often then not made with political motives. Their "interpretations" are not something that I think make a valid argument. However, these "legal experts" of whom you speak are a much less biased and much more reliable source of accurate constitutional interpretations. However, you have continued to dodge the question, "who are these legal experts you speak of, and what have they said?". I'll be surprised if you can actually find much to back you up on that. That said, I'd like to quote a few leading experts on the constitution here on my own behalf...
"The Constitution shall never be construed ? to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson
"A free people ought ? to be armed ?" - George Washington
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them ?" - George Mason
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion? in private self-defense ?" - John Adams
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ? and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason
"The right of the people to keep and bear ? arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ?" - James Madison
And I think that just about wraps it up for me. I'm looking forward to hearing what your "legal experts" say. But alas... I understand that it'll take a good long while, considering that you'll have to interview and quote EVERY single one of them...
Edited by mushmaster (01/21/03 05:03 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1236060 - 01/21/03 07:52 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Care to back these claims up? EVERY expert?
Ok, lets compromise. Enough legal experts agree to make it the judgement of the supreme and federals courts in every case except the renegade emerson judge.
Now tell me, does that have anything to do with me? Do you really think I control the american legal system? The same judgement has been being passed since 1939 - long before i was born. Do you think I'm responsible for supreme court judgements made before i was born? Or is it more likely that the balance of legal experts in the country simply don't agree with the NRA?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236078 - 01/21/03 07:57 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
You STILL haven't brought any proof to the table.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1236091 - 01/21/03 08:00 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Read about the supreme and federals courts decision. There's well over 30 cases where they dismiss the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment.
Educate yourself. Don't depend on someone else spoonfeeding you.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236104 - 01/21/03 08:02 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm well aware of the Supreme Courts acceptance of the right to bear arms as an individual right. The burden of proof is on you, as you are the one making claims.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1236176 - 01/21/03 08:23 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
of course. Though Im curious how you informed the criminal element in your neighbourhood of the fact that you are packin heat?
Did you place an ad in the local rag to let then know?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
chills420
Poo Pie Maker
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 354
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1236192 - 01/21/03 08:31 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Any law that registers a gun in your name should be a violation of your privacy and your rights.2 bad this isn't true. 
All registering does is makes a list.
This gun finger printing is such a waste and gay. It's retarded to think that a gun that has this done is going to be found this way.
Most guns that kill people other than in the home are stolen.
Lets say for example I wana AK-47 and it's had the figerprinting done.
I do a few things to fix this and it's totaly diff.
1 Change the bolt
2 Change the firing pin
3 Change out the barrel or shorten it.
4 If i wana go cheap I run I stiff wire brush up the barrel.
^^^^^^ doing 1 or all changes the finger print
All these parts can be bought anywhere without a LIC.
even ebay.
I do this with most of my guns anyway because most are post millitary and need repairs.
Why would you let your taxes go 2 waste like this?
I could see a law where guns must be kept secure @ all times by the owner.
I do this now without a law.
Anyone who owns more than 1 or 2 guns should or if you shot alot around your home.
I wouldn't feel bad feelings if my home was broken into and unsecure guns were stollen and later some kid shot up the school with it and the government filed charges against me. It would actually be my fault because i bought the gun and failed 2 secure it.
In order to have the permits I have I must have a quote from the paper work.
"secure storage facility ie.Racks w/locks, vaults,ect
I use a 3 ton fire safe. lets see someone run off with that.
I would feel awfull if one of the guns I built that brought me so much joy in building killed a inocent person.
Gun control wouldn't be a real big deal if everyone would act grown up and take care of there shit. I mean come on K-mart and wally world both sell safes for around 80-100 bucks. Grant it it's not a 3 ton fort knox but it works. So why do so many guns get stolen each year? Stolen gun= Crime
If you want to have a hand gun for protection at night or in general home use get it out and then put it back up b4 you leave no biggie it keeps you shit and it's secure also.
I though I was cool and safe a few years back and learned I wasn't. A 14 year old kid broke into my house and stole a 20 gauge shotgun and left everything else except a few stupid things a kid would take. I didn't even notice untill a few days later when the guy next door got robbed. I still haven't located the 20 gauge and I hope I never hear of it doing harm. But it was a good shock into reality people suck and will steal your shit.
--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever
|
chills420
Poo Pie Maker
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 354
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GazzBut]
#1236199 - 01/21/03 08:34 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
of course. Though Im curious how you informed the criminal element in your neighbourhood of the fact that you are packin heat?
Did you place an ad in the local rag to let then know?
Burn up a few hundred rounds in a afternoon with a ar-15 or SKS and everyone pretty much gets the point.
But the ? in general a criminal asks is who doesn't have a gun.
--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever
Edited by chills420 (01/21/03 08:36 AM)
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236293 - 01/21/03 09:10 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I am simply stating the Supreme court and federal courts view. It's what every legal expert in american law thinks.
I have to side with mushmaster and Mr Mushrooms that not "every legal expert" would agree with Supreme Court ruling.
Since I didn't get any solid answers from the Shroomery on my question of what "well regulated" means, I did my own research. Here's what I came up with:
First of all, I now agree that it was indeed the intent of the Second Amendment to give all people the right to bear arms (I never disagreed with this right, I just wasn't sure if that was an absolute right given by the 2nd Amendmend). I came to this conclusion based on what our founding fathers had to say about what a militia is. To them, it appears the militia was simply "the people" rising up against something they opposed.
But this still doesn't answer the question of what "well regulated" means. I found the answer to this simply by looking up the United States v. Miller case. It basically means that people shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, sawed off shotguns, and weapons that aren't considered necessary for a militia. So in this regard, I agree with Alex that the NRA is wrong if they believe the believe the people have a right to any arms they desire (I don't know if this is the NRA's official stance or not, but if it is I would disagree with them on the grounds of "well regulated".)
Does this interpretation seem fair (correct)?
I realize that given this interpretation, there will always be a debate about what type of arms are necessary for a militia. But since the founding fathers couldn't have known what weapons the future would bring, they had to leave this interpretation up to the courts of the future.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1236304 - 01/21/03 09:14 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I have to side with mushmaster and Mr Mushrooms that not "every legal expert" would agree with Supreme Court ruling.
Well the later post I made said enough agreed such that it was the conclusion of the supreme court and federals court in every case except one for the last 60 odd years. Well over 30 cases. It's pretty overwhelming which ever way you look at it.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236316 - 01/21/03 09:20 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Fair enough. But let me ask this: what did you mean exactly when you said they disagree with the NRA opinion. What is the NRA's opinion??? Maybe I would agree with you depending on your answer.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1236326 - 01/21/03 09:23 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
That the second amendment refers to gun ownership for individuals and not militias?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: chills420]
#1236329 - 01/21/03 09:24 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Hey chills, I liked your post about securing guns. I believe a law like that would be fair (legal) based on the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236343 - 01/21/03 09:29 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
That the second amendment refers to gun ownership for individuals and not militias?
Well, the question I struggled with is what for most of this thread is "What is a militia???" That's not an easy one to answer. But based on historical discussions I found on the web, I believe a militia is indeed "the people" joining together for a lawful revolt. Can't say for sure that's the right answer, but I do believe something close to that is what the founders meant.
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1236354 - 01/21/03 09:32 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This sounds reasonable:
When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" ? a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.
The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 ? hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236424 - 01/21/03 09:50 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well, I agree - that does sound very reasonable. Now, given that definition, let's revisit the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't know. Maybe it means people must be able to own weapons so they have something to bring with them if they participate in militia activities? 
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
Edited by GoBlue! (01/21/03 09:55 AM)
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236427 - 01/21/03 09:50 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
DIdn't you already cut and paste this from somewhere? I swear I've seen it in these forums very recently.
Anyways.... Quote:
membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 ? hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
That doesn't sound like the militia, it sounds like the KKK.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236547 - 01/21/03 10:12 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It was a form of compulsory military service...
Wrong. I don't believe there was any compulsory military service until Abe Lincoln instituted the draft during the war to reverse southern secession.
Quote:
The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government.
Please state where in the U.S. Constitution it established a permanent professional army. It does not....
"Article. I., Section. 8., Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; "
Your sources are incorrect.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
Edited by Evolving (01/21/03 10:14 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1236652 - 01/21/03 10:59 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you know what an unholy clusterfuck you got yourself into with that last time
Go back and read that post while you're reading the court decisions you posted. If you read the decisions you'll see that once again you're wrong... kind of like saying England controlled 75%. While reading the other thread you refer to you'll see that a few made one or two comments while you went on and on. The clusterfuck was entirely yours.
Quote:
it's every legal expert advising the supreme court and the federals court
So... you've gone from claiming every court in the nation to the supreme court to every legal expert who advises the supreme court. Keep waffling. Maybe you did read the decisions and your doing the "Al". Backing away gradually rather than admit defeat.
And even a casual read of my posts show a good deal more research than you put in. But keep patting yourself on the back. Few others will.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/21/03 11:11 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1236669 - 01/21/03 11:03 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Al... I'm real sorry man, but I just can't argue with you anymore. I thought that maybe after presenting completely solid points to back up my argument, that an open-minded, rational person, opposed to it would at least consider that my argument may indeed be correct.
It's obvious you haven't seen many of Alpo's posts or you'd know that's his style. He's a legend in his own mind. No matter how much proof he's shown, everyone who doesn't agree wih him is stupid, moronic, etc.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1237242 - 01/21/03 02:21 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So in this regard, I agree with Alex that the NRA is wrong if they believe the believe the people have a right to any arms they desire (I don't know if this is the NRA's official stance or not, but if it is I would disagree with them on the grounds of "well regulated".)
To quote Charleton Heston at an NRA convention I attended a few years back (the year of the Columbine Massacre), "It is the National Rifle Association, not the National Pipe Bomb Assiciation."
Edited by stonedfish (01/21/03 02:21 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1237297 - 01/21/03 02:31 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Rather than require everyone (including those who live alone or without kids or irresponsible adults) to lock up their guns, why not educate the population on gun saftey. I propose to add a firearms safety course to every high school in America. The kids don't even have to handle a gun, just be informed on the dangers and uses of guns. Shit, in high school we had to take a sexual education course, at the end of which we all recieved a few condoms. At the end of a gun saftey course, everyone could recieve a portable gun safe. The way I see it, education is much more effective than forcing people to comply.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1237311 - 01/21/03 02:35 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I like your idea. On top of it, I'd like to make the gun safety course a requirement for anyone wanting to purchase a gun, or at least have an equivalency test. You have to get a license to drive a car. You should have to get a license to own a gun. Or do they have that already? I'm not quite clear on gun laws.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
I thought I should clear this up: Advocating gun CONTROL does not make you anti-
gun. It just means putting regulations on what kinds of guns people can have and
who should be allowed to have them.
Gun policy in America is often at the whim of hysterical voters who see some
shooting on the news, and then proceed to scream "we need gun control!!!".
Rational debate and policy is needed on this issue. Biased knee-jerk reactions will
solve nothing.
Guns have the propensity to be dangerous. There need to be laws regulating
their sale and use. In my opinion, all of the laws that need to be in place are in
place. They are just not enforced as well as they should be sometimes.
As an aside, I love guns. I want so many of them. I want to get my
federal firearms license(so I will be allowed to own automatic weapons).
Guns....*drool*
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: chills420]
#1237352 - 01/21/03 02:47 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Burn up a few hundred rounds in a afternoon with a ar-15 or SKS and everyone
pretty much gets the point.
Ar-15. I have such a hard-on for that gun. I want to get one of the awesome
pre-ban ones. Mine is going to have a night vision scope, collapsible stock,
flash supressor, grenade launcher, and a bayonet.
|
Anonymous
|
|
>You have to get a license to drive a car. You should have to get a license to own a gun.
Same arguement was used by the infamous Bill Clinton. The difference is that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The Bill of Rights does not mention any right to travel (by car or horse). What I keep in my house is none of the government's business. It is their business, however, when millions of people are making use of government built streets, always at putting each other at risk of an accident. I believe that everyone should take a gun safety course, but I don't believe that they should be forced to. If the class were offered in high school, then many people would take advantage of it. In fact, make it a requirement for graduating (I know this seems to be a contradiction, but I will explain).
Once a person grows up, moves out, has bills to pay, and so on, why should the state force him to take a gun saftey class. Many people, myself included, learned gun saftey from family members at a very young age. So why should we be forced to go through all that training again, at our expense, just to buy a firearm? Sure, if a gun saftey class is a requirement, the guy will have to go through all the saftey rules and such again, but he will not be taking time out of his working life, because he is not a full time employee. Consider this: at my high school, Health and US History were the only two classes you HAD to take to graduate. I am all for the US History requirement, but come on, do they really have to teach us health (not even physical health, but a course in mental health). Swap that class with firearms safety and voila, you have a safer population (which doesn't constantly worry about having a mild case of ADHD).
|
chills420
Poo Pie Maker
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 354
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
As an aside, I love guns. I want so many of them. I want to get my
federal firearms license(so I will be allowed to own automatic weapons).
Guns....*drool*
Your FFl isn't what you need to own a full auto but it doesn't hurt to have it also.
You need a WMD permit I renewed mine 3 years ago and have to go back in a few months. things have changed a little with them mostly cost.
A few years back it was 3000.00 If i'm correct now it's 5000 but good for 5 years but as I said b4 i haven't had dealing with them except to turn in my yearly logs in a few years.
Edit Oh yeah you also have to pick up a paper from your countys head LEO
--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever
Edited by chills420 (01/21/03 04:44 PM)
|
chills420
Poo Pie Maker
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 354
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Anonymous]
#1237772 - 01/21/03 04:56 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rather than require everyone (including those who live alone or without kids or irresponsible adults) to lock up their guns, why not educate the population on gun saftey. I propose to add a firearms safety course to every high school in America. The kids don't even have to handle a gun, just be informed on the dangers and uses of guns. Shit, in high school we had to take a sexual education course, at the end of which we all recieved a few condoms. At the end of a gun saftey course, everyone could recieve a portable gun safe. The way I see it, education is much more effective than forcing people to comply.
But how does this keep it from being stolen and used in a crime? I never ment that it had to be under lock and key at all times just when you were off your property or away from the gun.
If you like to display them they also sell a tear gas bomb you use a clear string to attach thru your guns and pull out a pin on the tank.
If someone grabs one of the guns and picks it up it pulls the string and it emptys the tank in like 10 sec.
The house will air out in 3 hours after use.
I'd like to see some crack head grab one of these. That alone would make a security cam a must.
How much do you have invested in guns? If it's anything like me theres alot of cash there. I figured hell i have x amount of money n my guns why not spend a few extra bucks to keep them safe.
+it makes for a good place to hide stuff from the wife (they never go there unless there gona shoot you but then it doesn't matter if they find it)
--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: chills420]
#1237862 - 01/21/03 05:26 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But how does this keep it from being stolen and used in a crime?
It doesn't, but frankly, most gangsters, mafia, etc. tend to buy their guns on the black market, so it's hard to stop them, but I definitely think a gun safety course would reduce accidental shootings.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
|
Anyone stupid enough to pull a gun on a mafia member needs a good slap and after they kill that member of the mafia they will get what is coming,so will their family members.
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: chills420]
#1238093 - 01/21/03 08:31 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"But the ? in general a criminal asks is who doesn't have a gun. "
And how exactly does he know??
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GazzBut]
#1238140 - 01/21/03 09:45 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Of course they don't "know". There are some books and studies done where inmates were interviewed as to what type of things stopped them from robbing certain individuals / homes. The overwhelming response was fear of armed citizens / homeowners. This is why states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates. Take Florida as an example. These numbers are quite easily found. For many years in Fl if you wanted a concealed carry permit you had to convince the local government officials you"needed" one. Then several years ago the law was changed to a "must issue" law. This means the permit must be issued unless a problem shows up in the criminal record / mental health check. The violent crime rate dropped significantly.
In Vermont, anyone can carry concealed even without a permit. As a result they have one of the lowest crime rates in the US.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
|
As you know, I have altered my posistion. If somebody feels the need to carry a gun then fine. Its upto the individual
But you will never convince me the need is genuine and not fuelled by fear.
For the record, I live in one of the poorest boroughs in England. Gun crime is on the rise here but it is mainly between fellow criminals over some dispute. People who burgle houses and commit other crimes against your average lawabiding citizen(like my good self ) dont carry guns because they know a) It is unlikely their victims will be armed and b) If they do get caught the sentence will be much more severe if they are carrying a gun.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GazzBut]
#1238152 - 01/21/03 10:02 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I don't carry from fear but I'm sure some do.
And in most (possibly all) states, commiting a crime while using a gun adds an extra few years to the sentence.
Oh, and it's not necessarily "need". In many cases it's desire and the right.
And I'm glad to hear what an upstanding citizen you are.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Sinistar
I Am Sinistar
Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 29
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
|
my rights will always trump opinions. just as your rights will always trump my opinions.
i mentioned the abject hate of video games and such as an example as to what these guys are doing. they dont like movies,tv,music and games and have ranted till they got rating systems for them. groups like the lion and the lamb have come and and said that the whole purpose of the ratings sytem was to get the offending parties to stop producing the stuff. not to help parents to stop there kids from getting it. there final solution, an apt term considering the thoughts, is to not have this around anymore. not to regulate. Joe leiberman wasnt calling for regulation he was calling for a ban. remember that. doom and marilyn anson was sited for the columbine shootings. can we all agree that this is a load of shit?
hitler and mullah omar of taliban fame disarmed the populace before they went stark raving nuts. this isnt something that is up for debate. the ppl gave up there guns, and in the taliban case omar specifically said that if the ppl gave up there guns the taliban could better protect them. see where that went?
but whos to say that could happen in the good ole USA right? well joe biden called for the revoke of Posse Comitatus, which is the ban that is placed on the army for getting involved in law enforcement. the ban was put in place after northen soldiers stationed in the south were abusing the hell out of the ppl.
common sense says that an armed populace will be able to repel a hostile invasion. despite the govt having all those planes and bombs, they have to send in troops to take the place over. thats what were seeing in Iraq. you cant take over a place without manpower on the ground. i know here in the midwest that there is too many ppl with firearms of someklind for the army to march through. just like we did to the british, all wed have to do is set up somewhere and start sniping. and it wouldnt stop with the military. the local cops would be beat down too. and then the govt loses total control. so while we have guns, if pushed hard enough, we can stop anything the govt throws at us.
i also dont buy that the dems are doing this for the greater good. they lost a presidential election due to the fact that al gore couldnt carry his home state, along with other midwest dem strongholds. any one of those wouldve rendered florida moot. with a decent economy at the time, what wouldve cause those states to go republican? whether anyone likes it or not, gun control is very much hated in large portions of this country. and there votes still count. after 2000 all they did was go silent on gun control. they hoped it would blow over. some antigun senators had commercials with them walking around with shotguns. 9/11 had an impact at the polls for sure, but many ppl i talk to still dont trust the dems with protecting there gun rights and so wouldnt vote for them.
so instead of scrapping a divicive subject in a time where the dems need all the friens they can get, they elect nancy pelosi. so the gun ban platform is still number one in there book.
yes, i didn call some ppl brady campaign toadys and ill tell you why: silver in another thread had trashed some infomation that was pro gun, saying the person had got it from the NRA. if i remeber correctly he then posted a link to a study that supported a theory of his.....from the brady campaign. if NRA isnt capable of giving subjective analysis, then brady campaing cant either.
and yes i am angry. just like im angry about the patriot act and ho,meland security. i tend to get pissed when my rights are abolished or narrowed. i think certain segment of the population have done quire enough to fuck up this country. i will not cede one more concession for the war on drugs or terror or anything else. and i would rather die than live in a counrty where i cant defend myself or speek freely or have an intrusive govt. i choose to speak for the broadest rights possible for the person.
i dont think that ppl with guns are gonna go out and kill someone or rob a bank or store. saying ppl with guns are more disposed to violence is like saying blacks are genetically disposed to being gang members or on welfare.
what we need is less shit on the person, and longer, non paroleable, sentences for ppl who do crime with a gun. that is intelligent, and i bet if you put out in the media that any violent crime with a gun is 10 years minimum plus the term for the crime that youll see a damned drastic drop in gun crime. i dont know about the rest of america, but you can get a 5 year sentence for just walking into a liquor store with a pistol in ohio. ohio is a very republican, very 2nd amendment state.
bottom line: more freedom for the ppl. more time for the criminals. thats reasonable gun control.
--------------------
I Am Sinistar
You Dont Pay A Hooker For Sex, You Pay Them To Leave.
In The City, Where Angels Fear To Hover And Devils Come To Croon, The Sex Of The Night Lets Down Her Black Narcotic Hair To A Yellow Opium Moon.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
The danger with gun ownership isn't so much a threat from outside as much as the danger of it being used in a domestic dispute. Two people could be arguing and fighting and in the heat of the moment someone grabs the loaded pistol and shoots the other. That's why I recommend not keeping a loaded gun around the house.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Edited by silversoul7 (01/22/03 05:01 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
|
Shooting someone during a domestic dispute is fucking insane. You'd really have to be off your rocker to not be able to restrain yourself from just blowing away your spouse because you're in the middle of an argument. I think that probably only about .001% of the population is actually that fucked up. These people should not own knives, cars, or be allowed in public either.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1239480 - 01/22/03 09:59 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Why did you address that response to me?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1239789 - 01/22/03 11:34 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shooting someone during a domestic dispute is fucking insane.
And yet it happens all the time. In fact, strangely, it occurs more often than stabbings during a domestic dispute. This seems rather odd considering that just about everyone has sharp knifes in the kitchen, but not everyone owns a gun. I don't know why this is, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.
As the graph below, taken from the Bureau of Justice's website, shows, arguments are the number one circumstance of homocides:
Here are some links:
American Bar Association
Bureau of Justice
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Edited by silversoul7 (01/22/03 12:09 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1239841 - 01/22/03 11:51 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sinistar, please, you're an idiot. The Taliban disarmed the populace? They didn't even have control over the country; warlords opposed to them were still in control over large areas of Afghanistan. AK-47's were readily available to anyone wishing to purchase one, not to mention RPGs, mines, and grenades.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: ]
#1239929 - 01/22/03 12:20 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
mushmaster is right. I saw a one hour during documentary about it on TV.
Edited by sNaiLmAil (01/22/03 12:21 PM)
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1240403 - 01/22/03 03:05 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I just came across this:
U.S. Constitution: Second Ammendment
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' Therefore, ''in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''
Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made. At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I just thought I'd point out that first of all, the National Guard is not the same as state militias. Each state still has a military department, and it can, if necessary, call upon all armed, physically healthy males to defend the state from the federal government(I wish California would call on the militia to get the federal government off our backs about medical marijuana). All you people who said your guns were to protect you against your government, you were close, but they're actually to defend your state government against your federal government. So to all you gun owners, I hope you're prepared to defend your state against your country.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Edited by silversoul7 (01/22/03 03:08 PM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
the National Guard is not the same as state militias
Well they allow blacks in the national guard so I suppose that's one difference from the militias.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1240936 - 01/22/03 06:16 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not talking about those independent militias in Montana. I'm talking about actual state militias.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
BowlKiller
----
Registered: 09/22/02
Posts: 757
Last seen: 19 years, 4 months
|
|
Yes, individuals do in fact have the right to bear arms. And Yes, individuals do in fact NEED this right.
The fact is guns exist. So that means someone is going to own them. If the criminals own guns because of the black market, then law abiding citizens need guns as well for protection. If the government owns all the guns then it will be that much easier for them to control a population that is unarmed.
You can say that I desire to own guns out of fear, and when you do so you seem to be suggesting that my fear is not justified. Let me assure you that my fear is justified. I am afraid of police swat teams that will invade my life and be prepared to shoot me If I do something that the govt. does not agree with. Lets say for example you are a 60 year old man who has paid off his homestead. Now you had to retire and you have a set income. Social security only pays you so much as does your retirement funds. You still have to pay some bills, but the money you make is not enough to cover the property taxes you still owe every year. So the govt. will come to you and say hey, you owe us money we want it. Next thing you know your home has been seized and your bank accounts taken. This was all done by sending a swat team pointing guns at your face searching through your belongings and feeling good about doing so. Why is that wrong? Because the state is experiencing billions of dollars worth of surplus, thats surplus, the cream off the top. Now they dont mention the fact that there is a huge surplus so that no one will be alarmed at the way they tax the hell out of you and then when you can't pay, they take everything you own.
Now that is just one small example, and that is a fact. The IRS has strike teams and agencies to do just that. Oh yea there are provisions in the constitution that say that the govt. should not over tax the people. BUT as we all know the govt does not have to follow the constitution anymore.
I mean this really happens to people. Its a damn shame. And that is just one example. I mean these are not violent criminals out there raping women. And I say that because I have been reading people say that we need more police and everything to deter crime.
You can look at the financial records of states and counties. In the records it is easy to see that there are huge surpluses due to investment, etc. But the govt. tells the people that they need more taxes or there will not be enough funding for schools, while at the same time these city managers, comptrollers, etc. are buying property and stock in companies and living richly.
We need guns to protect our selves against the govt. It is true that Hitler disarmed the country before going crazy. I mean seriously this is not just conspiracy theory and ignorant fear. This is for real. Not to mention all the injustices waged under the "drug war" or "homeland security". I mean you dont stop terrorism by terrorising the people yourself.
It is so amazing that people are willing to give up freedoms and rights that make this country what it is. I mean have you seen the way cops are trained today. The Police are becoming military. Have you not noticed, I mean departments have APC's Armored Personel Carriers. Full Auto MP5's, snipers, chemical weapons, etc etc. the list goes on and on.
Someone a few threads up said that we need harsher punishments for crimes commited with a gun. So severe and harsh that no one would think to do such crimes. To you I must say I feel that your position is very dangerous, and not very thought out.
You do not heal a broken arm with a band aid. The problem is not that someone will commit a robbery with a gun. The real problem is why does that person feel like they need to rob just to stay alive. You should not just say that there needs to be overwhelming sentences thrown at this and that will work. What you will effectively do is create more and more prison institutions which will further cripple communities and lead to more crime. Harsher sentences means more jails and prisons. Which means more people locked into the system. Now while in prison these people need to eat right? So the prison institution says " we will charge you something like 1 dollar a day to pay for food. You will earn this one dollar by doing slave labor. We will allow companies to use you to produce products for the company. You will do this work with no saftey laws, no benefits, basically no pay, nothing." Ok so these companies fucking love and I mean love prisons. Companies in counties across the country are begging for prisons to be built. Think about it, they get cheap as fuck (basically slave labor) with no benefits to pay for and still get the product out the door. Read the 13th amendment again. Congress has effectively written slavery into the constitution. Now these prisons do cost money. Tax dollars to be exact. So hmmmmm how can we convince people that we need so many prisons, where we are building prisons to colleges at something like a ratio of 20 to 1. Ok what we will do is control the media, (because we own the media) to constantly, incessantly spew reports of crime and police battles with criminals and daily reports of the most recent crime. While in fact crime rates have been going down. Not only that we will make so many things not legal, and we will give our police the authority to search and harrass and do anything possible to find something wrong with anyone. "Oh hello officer, oh your just doing a routine traffic check? oh ok, whats that? oh you say you feel like there were some recent robberies in the area and so you want to search my car to see if I had anything to do with it? Oh, why dont I want you to search my car sir? I have a right to do so. Oh wahts that, step out of the car, oh you have probable cause cause I am hindering the police from investigating robberies in the area? Oh you found under my back seat a cooler with knives in it? oh I am in violation of possesing a concealed weapon? Your taking me to jail now?" So what I had some knives to clean fish because I like to fish. And I am not making this up. I mean really it happenes everyday, and slowly but surely the govt. is eroding the constitution and bill of rights. And its because of thinking like what we see in this thread... a militia is not the people, people dont need AR-15's for protection from criminals, you are just wanting guns because of a false fear, we need more cops, when there are more guns there is an increase in the crime rate, etc. etc.
This way of thinking is truly going to make things worse.
So why did I say the real problem is that someone needs to rob to stay alive. Well consider what we are creating. We are taking all of the money out of the education system and putting it into the prison system. Now think about it I mean really. You have schools where there are 50 kids in a classroom, and only 25 books. I mean even 25 kids in a classroom is a problem. You have teachers that dont get paid jack shit, yet are expected to not only go to school all day and teach in decrepit conditions, they are also expected to have teacher parent talks, give special attention to those students that are having a hard time, spend time constantly getting more teacher training, working long long hours, getting paid only for the time in class. And the reason for this? Oh, the govt. and state agencies say well we just dont have enough money in the budget, we are in a deficit, we would have to raise taxes to provide better education. And you dont want us to raise taxes do you? All the while every county accross the state has a surplus of money, there is plenty of money that has been invested into companies. Where does it go? To the city manager who just purchased a $550,000 home in FLorida somewhere. Where does it also go? to the 230 million dollar prison. So you have kids right now that are getting out of high school that can only read at a ninth grade level. Now I ask you how is this mutha fucker going to get a job? And I mean a job that pays well and is not working 12 hours a day.
Listen we have the money. Dont be fooled there is plenty of money to build better schools pay teachers, all that. Its just that no one does it because of the corruption that we the people do not put in check. Its because no one gives a shit. I am talking wide scale, I talk to people even in this forum who are so apathetic its crazy.
So yes because of this we MUST have guns. And not just some handguns, but AR-15 rifles, Much armor, much ammo, night vision, gas masks, high capacity magazines, scopes, the whole nine.
this is a response to the entire thread and not just silversoul7
--------------------
----
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
I'm not talking about those independent militias in Montana. I'm talking about actual state militias
Yeah but in the time of the founding fathers blacks wern't allowed to join militias.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
chills420
Poo Pie Maker
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 354
Last seen: 21 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Shooting someone during a domestic dispute is fucking insane.
And yet it happens all the time. In fact, strangely, it occurs more often than stabbings during a domestic dispute. This seems rather odd considering that just about everyone has sharp knifes in the kitchen, but not everyone owns a gun. I don't know why this is, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.
As the graph below, taken from the Bureau of Justice's website, shows, arguments are the number one circumstance of homocides:
Here are some links:
American Bar Association
Bureau of Justice
Can you find something on how many of the guns that shot someone in a DD (domestic dispute ) were actually legaly owned by the shooter or by the person shot and how many were just a saturday night special bought illegaly?
I know of lots of dumb asses that have guns that shouldn't that would prob pull it out in a fight or there dumb ass old lady would.
Most of these people bought a gun for 25-100 bucks and have no clue where it came from. <<Lots of people sell guns without letting a FFL person do the swap for them for 5-10 bucks. Hell if your straped 4 cash and thats why your selling it i'd do it for free so would alot of other FFL owners just to keep this from happening.
Once i own a gun it will never be sold again. Well untill I die.
Hell i might even put in my will they must be destroyed and supervised by my lawyer.
I'd do this excpecally if my kid grows up to be a dumd ass.
--------------------
Teach a man to make cakes he will trip for a night. Teach a man to case he will trip forever
Edited by chills420 (01/23/03 04:57 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
Conservative Answer:
BANG!
Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
|
hahahhahahahahhahaha
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
|
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
|
There's this retard who decides to take his family down a dark deserted street..... This guy needs to get a good stabbing and the kids could use a darwinning too cause those genes are piss poor
I'm just gonna be happy I don't live in a society where we don't fear crazy men with knives running at us I guess. For someone who continually says the gun ownership has nothing to do with his fear you sure sound paranoid.
BOOO! 
Did I scare ya?
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities.
Liberal Answer: "The odds of that happening are less that being struck by lightning (which is a fact), so I really shouldn't worry myself about this hypothetical situation."
Conservative Answer: "I'm so fucking paranoid that this could happen someday that I bought a gun which I carry with me."
And you said "I don't carry from fear but I'm sure some do". (why else would this extremely unlikely hypothetical situation even matter?)
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
For someone who continually says the gun ownership has nothing to do with his fear you sure sound paranoid.
Given the amount of crime and scumbags that are afoot in our society, a little
paranoia can be life-saving.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1243384 - 01/23/03 02:20 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Liberal Answer: "The odds of that happening are less that being struck by lightning (which is a fact), so I really shouldn't worry myself about this hypothetical situation."
Conservative Answer: "I'm so fucking paranoid that this could happen someday that I bought a gun which I carry with me."
I have friends born and raised in South Central Los Angeles. Not everyone has the good fortune to be born into a lilly white suburban neighborhood where people are usually respectful of property and life. They live where certain people will kill you just for looking at them. This is not an exageration, this is not paranoia, but reality.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1243778 - 01/23/03 04:23 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"They live where certain people will kill you just for looking at them. This is not an exageration, this is not paranoia, but reality."
Come on now, you think that's not an exaggeration??? Now that's paranoia to the extreme. I lived in LA for five years, and I worked with people who lived in South Central. I would ask them "aren't you scared to live there?", and their reply was "no, it's not bad at all except to people involved with gangs."
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: GoBlue!]
#1243910 - 01/23/03 05:09 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Two friends dead is not an exaggeration. I never said that they were scared to live there, but they were more realistic about the prospects of violence than some others appear to be. Being realistic is not being paranoid. Is it paranoid for a police officer to wear a gun? Is it paranoid for a doctor to wear gloves? Is it paranoid to want health insurance?
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: chills420]
#1244108 - 01/23/03 06:34 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Can you find something on how many of the guns that shot someone in a DD (domestic dispute ) were actually legaly owned by the shooter or by the person shot and how many were just a saturday night special bought illegaly?
What difference does it make? Shooting your wife is shooting your wife, whether or not the gun is legal.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
I'm just gonna be happy I
It would seem you do fear proofreading your posts.
And it would seem humor frightens you.
BOOO!
Did I scare ya?
No.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
BowlKiller
----
Registered: 09/22/02
Posts: 757
Last seen: 19 years, 4 months
|
|
Remember you do not just need a gun for protection from criminals. You also need to own guns for protection from the government. It is your responsibility to own a gun. Also, in most cases there is the "reasonable man" clause. And it means that any reasonable man would stop attacking you if you show them you have a gun.
--------------------
----
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: BowlKiller]
#1244846 - 01/24/03 03:42 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah but we ain't gonna get far taking on an F-16 with a .38 special. We need anti-aircraft missile launchers not guns.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Sinistar
I Am Sinistar
Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 29
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1245102 - 01/24/03 05:31 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
someone said i was a fucking dumbass about the mullah omar disarming ppl claim i made. well, i did a simple search on google and ill be damned if i couldnt find info on this within 5 entries. heres the site, which quotes off a boston globe article what happened. i encourage you to read it. and to that guy: suck my dick and let me nut in your cheek cunt.
www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121701.shtml
--------------------
I Am Sinistar
You Dont Pay A Hooker For Sex, You Pay Them To Leave.
In The City, Where Angels Fear To Hover And Devils Come To Croon, The Sex Of The Night Lets Down Her Black Narcotic Hair To A Yellow Opium Moon.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1245195 - 01/24/03 06:02 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Fair enough but why is this replied to me? I can't remember anything about mullah omar??
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1245199 - 01/24/03 06:04 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah but we ain't gonna get far taking on an F-16 with a .38 special. We need anti-aircraft missile launchers not guns.
How would F-16s be useful in a conflict without fronts, without borders, with no enemy encampments, with no marching army regiments, where you don't know if the man standing next to you on the bus is part of the resistence or not?
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
Edited by Evolving (01/24/03 06:05 AM)
|
sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
|
Umm, I DON'T live in a society where people are so paranoid they carry guns around....
Your post has baffled me oh wise one, it seems to read how I intened it to.
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1245251 - 01/24/03 06:26 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
How would F-16s be useful in a conflict without fronts, without borders, with no enemy encampments
What hypothetical situation are you envisioning here? A tyrant has taken over the government. So what do the people of america who disagree with the tyrant do? How do they fight back in your theory? How do .38 specials help to bring down the tyrant or change his policies?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1245502 - 01/24/03 08:10 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It's a shame you aren't more imaginative. I can think of things that have happened all over the world in the form of clandestine operations, such as ambushes of high level personnel, distrupting communications and data handling infrastructure as well as assasinations. However, I would not advocate nor encourage any such behavior. It is best to crawl on your belly and lick the jack boots of your masters (I'm sure you would agree with me, it's better to live on knees than die on your feet, right Alex?).
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Well here's what you posted....
"I'm just gonna be happy I don't live in a society where we don't fear crazy men with knives running at us I guess."
we DON'T live in a society where we DON'T fear? Perhaps what you mean is
"I'm just gonna be happy I live in a society where we don't fear crazy men with knives running at us I guess."
Or even this would have worked.....
"I'm just gonna be happy I don't live in a society where we fear crazy men with knives running at us I guess."
Notice the extra "don't" is missing?
So oh unwise one, perhaps Canadas schools need some help as well.
Or is it just you?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/24/03 09:02 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1245665 - 01/24/03 09:12 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It's a shame you aren't more imaginative
So you couldn't think of even a hypothetical situation where .38 specials would help bring down a government. As i expected...
distrupting communications and data handling infrastructure as well as assasinations.
We're talking about how you prevent a government with the full backing of the military and police carrying out whatever policies it desires. You stated .38 specials would help you. I asked you how.
Clearly this has stumped you.
The fact is of course that .38 specials would be of no use whatsoever. Hi-explosive, tanks, mortar, rocket-launchers along with people trained and tough enough to use them effectively would be a bare minimum. Rifles and 38 specials don't cut it. Ask the taliban.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1245822 - 01/24/03 10:14 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So you couldn't think of even a hypothetical situation where .38 specials would help bring down a government. As i expected...
I did, too bad you have trouble with comprehending what you read. First off, it's obvious from your questions and responses that you know so little about arms and tactics that any attempt to explain things would fly so far over your head that it's like trying to explain physics to a hound dog. Most people today don't use .38 specials, but the possible scenarios I described could utilize small arms of that caliber. Fill in the blanks if you are able.
Quote:
The fact is of course that .38 specials would be of no use whatsoever. Hi-explosive, tanks, mortar, rocket-launchers along with people trained and tough enough to use them effectively would be a bare minimum. Rifles and 38 specials don't cut it. Ask the taliban.
Again, reading comprehension has eluded you. Comparing the U.S. government fighting the Taliban to domestic resistance is ignorant. These are two entirely different kinds of conflicts. One has well defined enemies and open warfare, the other is of insurgents, clandestine operations, and tactical moves that you obviously don't have the ability or desire to understand. Your knowledge of weapons (.38 specials, Hi-explosive???) strategy and tactics (using F16s, tanks & rocket launchers within areas where the opposing sides and non-combatants are co-mingled???) is not sufficiently developed enough for you to engage in an intelligent conversation on this topic.
I will again include a version of my peaceful coexistence with tyrrany disclaimer for you. I do not advocate nor encourage any resistence or defensive actions against my government, blind and total obedience is important to the welfare of society. It is best to crawl on your belly and lick the jack boots of your masters.
Alex, is it safe to say that you agree with me if I say that it's better to live on knees than die on your feet? Come on, admit it, you do.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
Edited by Evolving (01/24/03 10:21 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1245839 - 01/24/03 10:24 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
First off, it's obvious from your questions and responses that you know so little about arms and tactics
Yawn..have you got your usual pompous burst of self-importance out of the way now?
the other is of insurgents, clandestine operations, and tactical moves that you obviously don't have the ability or desire to understand.
How large is this "clandestine" force of yours going to be? What if the tyrant has enormous support similar to Hitler? As your historical knowledge is so laughable you won't have heard of George Jackson, the Black Panthers, the red army faction or the red brigades. I can inform you that all these groups tried assassinations, bombings and "clandestine" operations. None of them ever came close to bringing down the government. They all ended up dead or in jail.
I repeat. How are handguns going to help bring down the government?
There appears to be no end to your stupidity.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
kb73
enthusiast
Registered: 10/18/01
Posts: 369
Loc: Abilene, TX
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Who is the Militia? [Re: Xlea321]
#1245907 - 01/24/03 11:08 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Like it or not, you are probably in a militia. Check your states Consititution. Mine says:
ARTICLE 12. Militia
Section 1. Composition
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
Also check out these good links:
Militia: http://williamcooper.com/militia.htm
Right to Keep and Bear Arms: http://williamcooper.com/rightto.htm
--------------------
WARNING chronicshroom will rip you off! Don't trade with him! I sent him 20 spore syringes and he never sent me anything.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Who is the Militia? [Re: kb73]
#1245989 - 01/24/03 11:53 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Alpo doesn't have the good fortune to be from the US.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
|
Missed the double negative. I'm not so much against gun ownership until jackasses like yourself say they want one
Sounds mean but seriously, the people on this board who are against waving guns around are the ones who seem most calm cool and collected and deserving to have that right. Not Angry,panicky and paranoid who are the ones who want them.
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
Edited by sir tripsalot (01/24/03 12:24 PM)
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Xlea321]
#1246065 - 01/24/03 12:25 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How are handguns going to help bring down the government?
They're not Alex. You are right. They are as useless as you assert. They are as harmless and as ineffectual as helium balloons. Therefore, there is no reason why they should not be legal. There is no reason for governments to use them and there is no reason why governments should want to ban them from the hands of private citizens. But this begs the question, why are you then afraid of these benign instruments of no use?
Now, back to some questions I would like answers for, if you please... I'm curious Alex, do you think it's better to live on your knees than die on your feet? Do you like prostrating yourself down before your government masters? Do you hold the values of cowardice higher than those of freedom?
You bitch and complain and blame all the world's problems on the U.S. but yet would like to tear the last vestiges of rights away from the very people who could thwart the country from descending into a dictatorship, the common man. How would you like it if the U.S. became a dictatorship, do you think you would have more to whine about or less? Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Many of us are relieved that you are not one of our countrymen. May your chains set lightly upon you, I will die a free man.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1246214 - 01/24/03 01:35 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
*starts a slow clapping of hands with a toothy grin all over his face*
pinky
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Sounds mean
Mean?
No... foolish perhaps?
Self rightous?
Yeah.... that's it.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1247148 - 01/25/03 03:18 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
You are right. They are as useless as you assert. They are as harmless and as ineffectual as helium balloons.
Nah, come on evol. There are a lot of groups in america right now who feel they are living under a tyranny. Millions of drug users for one. They all have .38 specials and rifles right? Could they bring down the Bush tyranny?
If individuals owning rifles could help bring down Bush I'd be all for gun ownership.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Evolving]
#1248144 - 01/25/03 12:54 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How would you like it if the U.S. became a dictatorship
I thought it already was.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
BowlKiller
----
Registered: 09/22/02
Posts: 757
Last seen: 19 years, 4 months
|
|
Someone earlier in this thread said something along the lines that they would fight if the govt. came and tried to take thier guns away. I hope you truly will do this because in the near future you will be faced with this decision. For the discussion as to weather or not people will be able to fight the govt. with small arms or not I would like to say this. Do you want to live under a terrorist who disregards your freedom in a convaluted attempt to protect you from other terrorists? I mean it doesnt even make sense. Terrorist are not taking away our freedoms. The govt. is if they would begin to say I can not own a gun. Now you have to understand that if you are not willing to fight for this, then you will simply become more and more like a branded animal then you are willing to believe. With the advent of national ID's, biometric screening of people, it WILL be as if we all have bar codes just like the piece of meat you bought at the grocery store.
For years the Govt. has been using the so called war on drugs, to get rid of the provisions that stop them form openly controling your every action. This is they are getting rid of the constitution. Now I really dont know if any uprising could ever take place in such an apathetic country, but I for one dont want to live in a police state. Dont you think the people that gave up thier guns were upset after Hitler totally took the people over?
Its not the same, its worse today. Its not just theory either, have you been pulled over by a cop lately. Have you seen the uniforms that cops use now days. I am talking about the all black jumpers, full military gear, hockey masks? Oh fuck yea, hockey masks man.
I mean what do you think these store cards are? Have you seen them, the store will issue you a card and you get discounts on products if you use it. Now that shit just makes it so the "powers that be" can watch what you buy. How easy would it be for them to say "oh you scanned these products, sorry you are not allowed to buy them." "Hello sir we noticed that you purchased some vermiculite we need to search your home now" (just an example)
Anyway the thing is that you need to have a gun, you should own many guns, and not just guns but stock piles of ammo. At least buy ammo man.
And it is strange beyond understanding how anyone can make an argument vs a gun lover saying that "well your just so scared and paranoid" Its not out of fear, but even if it was what is the problem with that? Thats just like saying you wear a seatbelt cause your scared of getting in an accident. Sometimes you may just need a gun for protection, and if you are a law abiding citizen I don see why you should not think to have one.
I am also afraid that another way the Govt. is going to try and get around the Bill of RIghts and COnstitution is through the U.N. That force of power can subvert the Constitution because it does not have to follow those regualtions.
Take a look at www.infowars.com and look at the police state section. This shit is very real. Soon you will probably see military running through your neighborhood, going into peoples homes and stealing from them, and you will wonder oh what is this for? Oh yea to stop terrorism, oh ok, thanks guys for searching through all my shit and doing as you please. Oh and thanks for shooting some of my neighbors because we dont want people to uphold the constitution, stoping terrorism is worth being turned into a piece of information on a card with no rights.
--------------------
----
|
Sinistar
I Am Sinistar
Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 29
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: BowlKiller]
#1261791 - 01/30/03 10:41 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
bump for a hell of a thread. this was fucking amazing.
--------------------
I Am Sinistar
You Dont Pay A Hooker For Sex, You Pay Them To Leave.
In The City, Where Angels Fear To Hover And Devils Come To Croon, The Sex Of The Night Lets Down Her Black Narcotic Hair To A Yellow Opium Moon.
|
BowlKiller
----
Registered: 09/22/02
Posts: 757
Last seen: 19 years, 4 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: Sinistar]
#1262525 - 01/30/03 03:10 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It is your responsibility as an american to own a gun. You are a special person on this earth because you have the ability to live as you wish. You have this right because other men took up arms and fought for it. Men died for this. Never disrespect thier sacrifice. Own a gun.
--------------------
----
|
BowlKiller
----
Registered: 09/22/02
Posts: 757
Last seen: 19 years, 4 months
|
Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: BowlKiller]
#1290768 - 02/08/03 09:19 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
So have you bought a gun yet, ammo at least? (the ammo is to give as a supply to your neighbor who may need it.)
--------------------
----
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: For You Gun Haters [Re: BowlKiller]
#1290814 - 02/08/03 09:36 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I assure you that the right to bear arms was not very high on the colonists' list of reasons to revolt from England. I hardly think it would be fair to say they died for that right.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
|
Quote:
I assure you that the right to bear arms was not very high on the colonists' list of reasons to revolt from England. I hardly think it would be fair to say they died for that right.
The war started on April 19th, 1775 when the British attempted to confiscate guns at Lexington and Concord.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
MagicalMystery
1 2 all )
Ellis Dee
TheOneYouKnow
pattern
lonestar2004
