| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 dee_N_ae \/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å†    Registered: 08/16/02 Posts: 2,473 Loc: The Shadow of Ne |
| ||||||
|
in the coming year do you think it would be more and more likely that we could use the second amendment to jusity shooting police officers or soldiers?
from 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. could that not be interpereted to mean that we are constitutionally obligated to bear arms against our government when it becomes a tyrannical dictatorship that is taking away our percieved freedoms? Edited by dee_N_ae (08/31/02 03:58 AM)
| |||||||
 Unity333 addict  Registered: 08/26/01 Posts: 685 Last seen: 9 years, 17 hours |
| ||||||
|
I do not like guns, nor usless prevoceted would I ever shoot anyone, but hurt me or mine, and I have the right even if you are the law to shot back....
I like haveing this right.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
The second amendment is one of the most badly phrased sentences in history. I think it's generally thought that it meant only state authorities like the army and police should be allowed to own guns.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Captain Jack i [heart] you  Registered: 01/23/00 Posts: 4,113 |
| ||||||
|
the answer is:
no, moron. -------------------- - Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?   Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Dope
-------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: It's phrased just fine and it's a individual right, not a police and army right. Or do you not understand what the word "people" means? When it was written the word militia meant a peoples army, a citizens army. If you take a few minutes and read some of the Federalist papers written at the time, written by the creators of the bill of rights, it will soon be clear to even the biggest fool that the right is for the people, to defend against a tyranical goverment and to ensure all the rest of our rights. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
In reply to: "Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." -- Samuel Adams "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 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
| |||||||
|
dee_N_ae \/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å† Registered: 08/16/02 Posts: 2,473 Loc: The Shadow of Ne |
| ||||||
|
heh
i'm not saying i want to kill cops or anything this was just something a friend's dad was ranting about and i wanted to see what ya'll thought, no need to go around calling names. i generally despise NRA types, but the second amendment is what it is and i'm glad we have it.
| |||||||
|
Eightball whore consumer   Registered: 07/21/01 Posts: 3,013 Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
it won't be justified in any court because its too radical for todays censored citizens who would rather have the gov tell them what to do and follow obiediently than actually question authority and face reprocussions of action versus inaction.
-------------------- If you're frightened of dying and you're holding on.you'll see devils tearing your life away. But...if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels Freeing you from the earth.
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel  Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I was surprised at your opinion because from your handle I thought you were naming yourself after the handgun. Desert Eagle in .50 ae
From the founders writings it is clear that they intended for the 2nd to be an individial freedom. I do agree however it is one of the most poorly worded sentences in American History. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
MYTH #1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own and carry a gun.
FACT: The gun lobby focuses on the second half of the Second Amendment when they make this argument. In doing so it misinterprets the meaning of the amendment. The Second Amendment is designed to give the states the right to form and maintain a"well regulated militia" to provide for the security of the state and as supplement to the police. It and is not meant to ensure an individual right to bear arms. The amendment means what it says - in its entirety. The National Guard, created in 1903, is the modern equivalent of an organized state militia. The members of the National Guard are provided with arms when called into duty and are not required to privately own firearms for service. This view that the Second Amendment is a group rather than an individual right has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts. In fact, no law restricting the ownership of private arms has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless it has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Supreme Court has stated that today's militia is the National Guard. That decision by the Supreme Court is the law of the land. We challenge those who claim that the Federal government does not have the right to restrict the private ownership of firearms to file a lawsuit against the Federal government, on Second Amendment basis, to overthrow the Brady Bill and/or the ban on assault guns. MYTH #2: The Founding Fathers of this nation intended to give every individual the right to own firearms. FACT: The constitution was drafted in 1787 by delegates from the former colonies appointed for the purpose. There was much discussion, comments, and disagreements about all parts of the constitution, including the second amendment. Like any political document , drafting the constitution required compromises between the different views of those who were given the task of drafting the document. It had to be ratified by the states before going into effect. The states clearly wanted to maintain their militias. They feared armed rebellions by organizations within their state. This had already happened in Massachusetts just one year before the convention convened. In 1786, the "Shays" rebellion was put down by the state militia. Keeping strong, well regulated state militias was of great interest to many delegates. Recent research by noted historians support the argument that the states which permitted slavery greatly feared an armed rebellion by slaves and wanted to be prepared to deal with it. It must be kept in mind when reading high-toned pronouncements by some leaders of the time that many of the most vocal represented "slave" states and were themselves owners of slaves. Their state governments and their livelihood depended on maintaining the institution of slavery. Those who quote Thomas Jefferson should be aware that he was from a "slave" state, Virginia, owned slaves, and did not attend the constitution convention. Though certain individuals among our Founding Fathers may have believed in an individual right to the ownership of arms, the Second Amendment did not reflect this. Once again, although certain individuals among the writers of the constitution may have believed in an individual right to own and bear arms, the resulting document of the group as a whole did not reflect this view of firearm ownership. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
You seem as if you should know enough to post the source for cut and pastes, apparently you don't.
If I had to guess I'd say you cut that from Handgun Controls website. Try these: Legal Issues This section deals with just a few of the major legal issues and landmark court cases in regard to the Second Amendment. According to the Supreme Court in Verdugo-Urquidez, "the people" does not denote the National Guard, or States. (b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266. Text from U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, Sup. Ct. case No. 88-1353 (1990). Perpich v. Dept. of Defense established that the National Guard is not a Militia. It is ultimately under federal control. Article one's plain language, read as a whole, establishes that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of a State Governor or the declaration of a national emergency. U.S. Supreme Court, Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) on establishing the National Guard under federal contorl. In Dred Scott v Sanford, one of the reasons the Supreme Court denied slaves rights was because it allow them to be armed, all well as enjoy other basic human rights we all share today. "Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding." U.S. Supreme Court, Dred Scott v Sanford 1857 Federal oversight of firearms is not called for in the constitution, especially if that right is granted to the people in the constitution. "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." Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution. Here the court deals with "previous restraint" of a constitutional right, as opposed to punishing law breakers. 'The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege.' Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931). Us Supreme Court States can not infringe upon second amendment rights. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Section 1, Amendment XlV, United States Constitution It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. U.S. Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) The Militia described in the second amendment was not meant to be a federally controlled National Guard. 'The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) US Supreme Court The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Miller (1939) 'Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints. The Militia Act of 1792, which was passed one year after the 2nd Amendment and declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were members of the militia. And here's the source: http://www.gunfacts.org/ Here's a few more: "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 in On Crimes and punishment - (1764). "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788) "...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." Alexander Hamilton "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams (1780) "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason, 3 Eliot, Debates at 425-426. "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson "Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788). "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms ?To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788). "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788) "The said Constitution be never construed ?to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788). "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" 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 . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia [note: like the National Guard], must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.' Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, ed. Walter Hartwell Bennett "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No.28 "Who are the militia? are they not ourselves?...Congress has no power to disarm the militia....Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette February 20, 1788 "The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. .... all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided." Richard Henry Lee "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as 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 "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 of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46 "The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896). "Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851). "What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29. And here's once each from Walter Mondale and the left wings own Malcom X: "Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." Walter Mondale, Former Vice President, (D) and U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 4/20/94 ... I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shogun or a rifle." Malcolm X, April 3. 1964. *Malcolm X Speaks* ((New York: Merit Publishers, 1965) Try and find many respected constitutional scholars who feel the second ammendment isn't an individual right, you may find a few. The majority who can think for themselves and who don't blindly believe what an anti gun group spouts will tell you it is indeed an individual right. -------------------- 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: 34,248 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
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
If I had to guess I'd say you cut that from Handgun Controls website.
er...well done. You'll go far....and let me guess...you're stuff came from a pro-gun site? Try telling all that to some of the parents of kids slaughtered at Columbine. In England they introduced stricter gun controls after a similar massacre of little kids at Dunblane - to date (6 years later) there have been no similar cases. While in America a new massacre of children happens regularly. Coincidence? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/01/02 02:11 AM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
I disagree with the word "regularly"... but if you do a little checking you'll find the violent crime rate and the rate of burgleries and robberies has shot way up in England since the change in gun laws. The same has happened in Austrailia.
You can't blame murders on guns. More people are killed with bare hands than are shot. More crimes are stopped by armed citizens than by cops. The pure and simple facts of the matter show that we are guaranteed the right to have guns. Only a constitutional change will prevent us from doing so. The majority of us in the US are safer as a result. Cops come after the crime has been comitted. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
I disagree with the word "regularly"...
Well how often do you think it's ok to have little kids blown apart by automatic weapons? Is it ok if it only happens twice a year? You can't blame murders on guns. Sorry man, but I don't want every yahoo walking round on the street packin heat. I don't have that much faith in drunken assholes with automatic weapons. In England you can walk around knowing that the muggers and the burglars are unarmed, the most they'll be packing is a knife. A mugger with a knife i can handle. A mugger with a gun has a very good chance of killing me. I'd rather none of them had guns. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: Of course... but read the quotes and court decisions. They came from the founders of this country and from the Supreme Court. Who better than the founders would know what they meant by the words of the 2nd ammendment. All the anti gun nuts in the world can not change the fact that the ammendment is for the people, not the government. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
Like the myth 2 part i posted above says - there's no doubt some of the founding fathers agreed with arming civilians, that's just not what the second amendment says. That says militia. A private citizen isn't a militia.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: I don't think even once is OK. However that doesn't change the fact that evn with out guns people can kill many. Look at Oklahoma City, the disco in NYC where a nut set the place on fire with gasoline, killing many, look at suicide bombers. If people want to kill, they will. Taking guns away from the law abiding will not stop them. Tell a woman trying to defend herself against a larger mugger with a knife she doesn't need and shouldn't want a gun to defend herself. Tell even a guy who is confronted by a group of gang members who want to beat the crap out of him that he doesn't need a gun. I'm glad that you can defend yourself but what of those who can't? -------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Read my list of quotes to find out what the definition of militia was at the time...
Every able bodied man. Just because the definition of militia has changed over the years doesn't matter. The founders repeatedly said it was a right of the people. Or don't facts matter to you? So did the court... 'The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) US Supreme Court But don't let facts stand in your way. -------------------- 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 (09/01/02 02:31 AM)
| |||||||
|
amanita3 Rumplestiltskin Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 69 Loc: High Desert Last seen: 21 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
great post, luvdemshrooms. Bill of rights was designed to protect the citizens from the Bureaurats, not the other way around. Sorry, Alex123. Usually I agree with you but this round YOU LOSE!
Guillotines were designed for beheading heads of State when they exceed their bounds and go running amok. Time to oil up the guillotines again, methinks. "Evil reigns when good men do nothing". 
| |||||||
|
toxick The GoodReverend  Registered: 12/10/00 Posts: 128 Loc: O NE |
| ||||||
In reply to: Where guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns. You really think that if they're going to go rob someone that they have any respect for gun control laws? Well, they may respect them (after all, gun control laws are helping the criminals), but they will most certainly not obey them. (shamelessly stolen from infowars.com) 
-------------------- Janet Reno, if I do not go to jail, I will be in Orlando August 15 and you are not going to be elected to any damn thing. Nobody should fear our Government. - James Traficant Edited by toxick (09/01/02 06:12 AM)
| |||||||
|
Captain Jack i [heart] you Registered: 01/23/00 Posts: 4,113 |
| ||||||
|
quoting the founding fathers doesn't mean dick.
do you really think we should listen to them? i guess i should go find some niggers to make my slaves now.... -------------------- - Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.
| |||||||
|
francisco Richman Sporeman Registered: 01/15/02 Posts: 133 Loc: USA Last seen: 6 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I think it's much simpler to vote their bosses out of power.
-------------------- Well...Maybe just a little.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
It may not mean dick to you, but it does to me. Yes, I do think we should listen to the things they had to say. They gave us a set of rules that has lasted over 200 years. No other form of government has lasted so long.
Fortunately, people like you are in the minority. If it wasn't for the Bill of Rights... chances are this site might either not exist at all or be very different. I know it's owners are based in Canada but if you don't think being that close to the US has had no effect on laws in Canada then you don't think very clearly. So you don't like the second ammendment. Give them all up and try living somewhere that they don't exist. Bet you'd quickly change your mind. Try living in a place where there is no freedom of the press or prohibition of illegal search and seizure. Maybe you'd rather give up the right to a trial of your peers? Oh and as to your foolish statement about slaves, white were kept as slaves also. It was called indentured servitude. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
The point is whether the second amendment says any yahoo in the country should have a sub-machine gun, It clearly doesn't. If they had meant this they could have said in one simple sentence:
"Every individual has the right to own guns". They didn't do this. They included the "militia" part at the beginning of the sentence. That suggests to me they didn't mean "Every individual has the right to own guns". There was something more to it. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Where guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns.
Yeah but only a tiny, tiny minority of them will have them. I doubt there's one mugger in 100,000 in England with a gun. Or rapist. In America, every single mugger on every single street corner will be packing. Every singe road rage maniac will be packing heat. That doesn't sound too good to me. I could be wrong, but the next time I upset someone in a car I'd rather he jumped out with his fists rather than pumping lead through my windscreen. Sure, big time criminals will have guns - but how many big time criminals do you meet who are going to mug you? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
We provided quotes from the founding fathers regarding the nature of militias and the right to keep and bear arms, yet you ignore them and state that your interpretation is somehow more valid the words of the people who founded this country. It is obvious that you will not let facts get in the way of your pre-conceived notions and the mental pablum you regurgitate after a lifetime of feedings from the government run propaganda, er I mean school system.
I have another quote for you and all the other pathetic bleating sheep who would sell us down the river to an ever increasingly totalitarian system, who will sacrifice our liberties for their fantasy of government guaranteed security... "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
| |||||||
|
Phluck Carpal Tunnel  Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 1 year, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
"They gave us a set of rules that has lasted over 200 years. No other form of government has lasted so long."
Wrong. I don't even need to give examples to back this up. Just think for ten seconds. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
amanita3 Rumplestiltskin Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 69 Loc: High Desert Last seen: 21 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Well said, Evolving. Give 'um hell!
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Whoever it was that said that some other countries have made stricter gun laws. I also would like to remind you, that go to that country. Look at how many knive ads they have. Sheesh. Maybe they dont shoot people but being stabbed hurts also =)
| |||||||
|
Eightball whore consumer Registered: 07/21/01 Posts: 3,013 Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
i can legally own a machine gun in florida! isn't that some cool shit?
-------------------- If you're frightened of dying and you're holding on.you'll see devils tearing your life away. But...if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels Freeing you from the earth.
| |||||||
|
Captain Jack i [heart] you Registered: 01/23/00 Posts: 4,113 |
| ||||||
|
Did I say I don't like the Bill of Rights?
Did I say I don't like the Second Amendment? No. I just don't agree with using quotes from people who lived in the 18th century as an argument. After all, if we based all our laws around them, we should have slaves. And we'd have a bunch of other fucked up rules....because they had some fucked up rules. Of course, you ignored that point and just called it a foolish statement because whites were slaves too. So should I say "round me up some niggers and crackers to make my slaves"? Then will you check for the point before calling me a fool? -------------------- - Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.
| |||||||
|
toxick The GoodReverend Registered: 12/10/00 Posts: 128 Loc: O NE |
| ||||||
In reply to: I'm glad you're so confident about it. I'm not. Care to cite any references? In reply to: Waaaaah. Help me, I'm defenseless! So just how do you propose we go about getting all of these guns back that people already own? I certainly don't see door-to-door searches going over very well with the general public. Point 2-B, the problem isn't the gun. I repeat, the problem ISN'T the gun. The problem is the maniac wielding the gun. Don't attack the shadow, attack the source. We have a very poor understanding of guns and violence in our culture. Just watch the teevee for an hour...any station will do. We need to better educate everyone as a whole. Intelligent people don't go blow holes through other people's heads, they blow holes through their minds. "Oh, was I taking life too seriously? Sorry, I thought this shit mattered" -------------------- Janet Reno, if I do not go to jail, I will be in Orlando August 15 and you are not going to be elected to any damn thing. Nobody should fear our Government. - James Traficant
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
I'll re-phrase it for you then.
The United States is the longest-lasting democratic form of government known in the history of mankind. Hope that's more to your liking. Thanks for the opportunity to be more clear. -------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Perhaps you should re-read my post. I responded to both parts.
In reply to: I gave other more recent quotes as well. Did you bother to read any of them? -------------------- 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
| |||||||
|
Captain Jack i [heart] you Registered: 01/23/00 Posts: 4,113 |
| ||||||
|
yeah i'm always a huge fan of using the Dred Scott decision to back up what i'm trying to say.
-------------------- - Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Well at least your consistant.
-------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
We provided quotes from the founding fathers regarding the nature of militias and the right to keep and bear arms, yet you ignore them and state that your interpretation is somehow more valid the words of the people who founded this country.
You are clearly so profoundly ignorant that you ignore everything that you don't agree with. The point has been made repeatedly in the thread that while there were some of the founding fathers who agreed with gun ownership this was not reflected in the wording of the second amendment. When you grow up enough to conduct a civil debate perhaps you could get back to us. Thanks. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/01/02 06:33 PM)
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
In reply to: Just because you or others state something repeatedly does not make it so. Please provide quotes from the Federalist Papers or more importantly, the Anti-Federalists to back up your position, as I and others have done with ours. (The arguments of the Anti-Federalists were largely responsible for the amendment of the Bill of Rights to 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." -- US 2nd Amendment I've bolded the words that offend you. Notice that it doesn't say 'the right of the states' or 'the right of the federal government,' no, it says 'the right of the people.' Now, check out the wording on this: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- US 9th Amendment Or how about this: "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." -- US 10th Amendment Notice the terms, 'United States,' 'states' and 'people.' I guess you and some others don't know the differences between the meanings of these words, fortunately some of us still do. Edited by Evolving (09/01/02 08:59 PM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Don't you think if they'd have simply meant "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" they were intelligent enough to simply state this? Why start the sentence discussing militia unless the rest of the sentence relates to militia? Can you explain this? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
They preface the stated right with the most important justification. They had just fought a war of secession against a government which they felt was increasingly tyrranical. They realized that for the people to be free, they must maintain the security and freedom of the states. Towards that end, the people must be armed so that the militia (citizens who may be called to arms) may be able to defend and restore their liberties.
Understand the meaning of the militia (it is not the National Guard)... "The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #28 "The President, and government, will only control the militia when a part of them is in the actual service of the federal government, else, they are independent and not under the command of the president or the government. The states would control the militia, only when called out into the service of the state, and then the governor would be commander in chief where enumerated in the respective state constitution." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #69 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." - Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." - "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX. "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789. "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." - John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." - James Madison, notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson "The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freemen." - Gov. R. Lucas, former Major General of the Ohio Militia, 1832 "The United States should get rid of its militias." - Stalin, 1933 Please indicate where in the Constitution or provide quotes from the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Constitutional Convention Debates or any relevant source which states that the militia is the National Guard. (hint: the Constitution was written in the 1700s, and the National Guard was not created until January 21, 1903, under the name of its founder, "The Dick Act.") Please also provide quotes from any of the afore mentioned sources which supports the argument that the Second Amendment is not to be construed as a safeguard against tyrrany. Edited by Evolving (09/02/02 05:48 AM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
It would appear Alex has made his mind up. I guess we shouldn't expect facts to make any difference to him.
-------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
Is this how you were taught to interpret the written word? Ignore the first part of the sentence and just take note of the bit you like?
Cutting and pasting quotes from a pro-gun lobby site does not an argument make. If the founding fathers had meant militia to mean every single individual in the US they wouldn't have needed to use the term. They would have simply said "Every individual has the right to bear arms". Clearly a militia is something entirely different to an individual. Otherwise any anarchist bomber could have said he was a "militia" and had the right to attack anyone. MILITIA - The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion. The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. - 15. to provide for organizing, arming , and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/02/02 07:08 AM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
I guess we shouldn't expect facts to make any difference to him
Why not hit me with one? I havn't read one from you guys yet. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Like I said, facts don't matter to you. You seem to insist upon using the modern definition of militia. In the days that the bill of rights was written the militia was every able bodied man. That was the term for an army of the people. Even today the definition of an army of citizens / civilians still lives on.
mi?li?tia Pronunciation Key (m-lsh) n. 1.An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3.The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=militia In reply to: You mean we haven't hit you with one you're willing to accept since it goes against what you want to believe. You don't want to accept Supreme Court decisions, quotes from those who wrote the Bill of Rights, dictionary definitions, and you don't want to provide evidence of what you state. At this point I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse. Either that or you're just trying to prolong this thread. Unless you can come up with some evidence to back up your claim, besides the feeble attempts to whine and cry because you don't like the way the ammendment is written, don't expect me to waste my time trying to explain the obvious to 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
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
In reply to: I did address the first part of the amendment, apparently you weren't paying attention, or are unable to interpret the written word, "They preface the stated right with the most important justification. They had just fought a war of secession against a government which they felt was increasingly tyrranical. They realized that for the people to be free, they must maintain the security and freedom of the states. Towards that end, the people must be armed so that the militia (citizens who may be called to arms) may be able to defend and restore their liberties." In reply to: Reading comprehension, "... the right of the people..." Look at the wording of the other amendments as I previously presented for you, the people get it? The people are all the individual citizens. In reply to: Are you really incapable of comprehending that any organization of humans is composed of individuals?
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Tell me something. If the second amendment really means what you're saying - that every individual should bear arms why stop at handguns and rifles? Why don't you campaign for every individual to own bazoookas, anti-aircraft missiles, blackhawk helicopters and nuclear weapons?
What use is your militia when they only have handguns and the state has tanks and helicopters? If you truly believe the idea of the second amendment you're pushing then outside every home there should be a tank. Why do you only want people armed with rifles and handguns? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/02/02 07:06 PM)
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex.
Why do you hate freedom? Why do you think I shouldn't be allowed to keep my six shooter I bought a couple months ago? Why do you think I shouldn't be allowed to keep my 12 guage under the bed that I use for home defence and sleep well at night? Why don't you thnk I should be allowed to use that same shotgun to shoot clay disks and rabbits and deer when they're in season? Why do you hate my freedom so much? -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: Where did you get "should" from.... it's not that everyone should. It's that all "law abiding" americans have the right. Whether or not they choose to exercise that right is up to them. In reply to: Technically, in the US vs Miller, the ruling was that the weapons must be in comman usage by the military. However, even if we could find someone willing to sell us a tank or a blackhawk, who could afford one. I'd love to have a helicopter. Your replys are getting more far-fetched and you still have offered nothing to back up your position other than foolish examples and whining. -------------------- 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 (09/02/02 10:46 PM)
| |||||||
|
mntlfngrs The Art of Casterbation  Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 3,937 Last seen: 6 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Lets stop arguing the second amendment and look at some statistics.
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/audiopages/gunlaws.html http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/%7Ellou/guns.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html http://www.zpub.com/un/guns.html http://www.enteract.com/~mgfree/GunFacts_NRA-Mag.htm http://www.igc.apc.org/ncia/facts.html#rate http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/91/79/05_1_m.html [url=http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/89/101/02_3_m.html] ]http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/89/101/02_3_m.html[/url] FIREARMS FACTS: GENERAL NUMBER OF Approx. 200 million firearms, GUNS IN U.S.: including 65-70 million handguns GUN OWNERS IN U.S.: 60-65 million, 30-35 million own handguns FIREARMS USED 11% of firearms owners FOR PROTECTION: 13% of handgun owners CRIMINAL MISUSE OF Less than 0.2% of firearms, FIREARMS YEARLY: Less than 0.4% of handguns Over 99.8% of U.S. firearms and 99.6% of U.S. handguns will not be involved in criminal activity in any given year. NRA voluntary firearm safety programs have helped reduce the accidental firearm fatality rate 67% over the last 50 years, while firearms ownership has risen 140%, and handgun ownership has risen 200%. WHY AMERICANS OWN FIREARMS (Based on 1978 Decision Making Information surveys, with handgun data confirmed by 1978 Caddell survey.) Primary Reasons to Own/Use Firearms, Projected Number of Americans (Approx. 60-65 million owners of 200,000,000 or more firearms) HUNTING: 51% 33,000,000 Americans PROTECTION: 32% 21,000,000 " Used Gun for Protection: 11% 7,000,000 " TARGET SHOOTING: 13% 8,500,000 " COLLECTING: 4% 2,600.000 " Primary Reasons to Own/Use Handguns Projected Number of Americans (30-35 million owners of 65,000,000 handguns) HUNTING: 10% 3,500,000 Americans PROTECTION: 58% 21,000,000 " Used Gun For Protection: 13% 4,600,666 " TARGET SHOOTING: 18% 6,300,000 " COLLECTING: 14% 5,000,000 " FIREARMS AND SELF-DEFENSE Survey research indicates that there are more than 2.1 million protective uses of firearms each year, far more than the number of violent criminal gun uses reported by the FBI. Most self-defense uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only 0.1% of defensive gun uses is a criminal killed, and in only 1% is a criminal wounded. A Department of Justice-sponsored survey found that 40% of felons had chosen not to commit at least one specific crime for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims. U. S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that the protective use of a firearm lessens the chance that a rape, robbery or assault attempt will be successfully completed and also reduces the chance of injury to the intended victim. CRIME RATES LOWER IN STATES THAT ALLOW LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO CARRY FIREARMS States with favorable concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than states with restrictive concealed carry laws. Overall, the homicide rate for states with favorable carry laws is 31% lower, and the robbery rate is 36% lower, than for states with restrictive concealed carry laws. States which have recently changed their laws have experienced reductions in homicide rates. Since 1987, when Florida enacted a favorable CCW law, its homicide rate has dropped 22%, even while the national rate has risen 15%. Only .007% of Florida CCW permits have been revoked because of a crime after licensure. BIASED MEDIA POLLS DON'T TELL THE REAL STORY Media polls conducted by national polling firms frequently use biased questions and also limit the responses of those questioned. A Luntz Weber Research & Strategic Services poll reflects an accurate view of public opinion, using open ended questions which allow respondents to express their real opinions, rather than be directed toward a desired result. When given the opportunity to freely express themselves, Americans reveal that they do not believe that "gun control" is effective at fighting crime; they prefer criminal justice reform, stiffer penalties, better enforcement and solutions aimed at the core causes of crime. Some of the significant findings of the Luntz Weber survey are: Which of the following proposals do you believe would be more likely to reduce the number of violent crimes? Mandatory Prison 70% More Gun Control 25% What do you think is the most important cause of violent crime in the United States today? Drugs/Alcohol 36% Breakdown of Family Values 13% Poverty 8% Guns 8% Judicial System 5% In your opinion, what do you think is the single most important thing that can be done to help reduce violent crime in the United States today? Preventative programs 30% Prosecution/Penalties 20% Stronger Values 16% Better Enforcement 16% Gun Control 9% Other than for the police and military, all guns should be outlawed. Total Disagree 78% Total Agree 21% Strongly 58% Strongly 14% Somewhat 20% Somewhat 7% 12 LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (latest data) ALL CAUSES 2,169,518 Heart Disease 720,862 Cancers 514,657 Strokes 143,481 ACCIDENTS 89,347 Motor Vehicle 43,536 Falls 12,662 Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas) 6,434 Drowning (incl. water transport drownings) 4,685 Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion) 4,195 Fires and flames 4,120 Surgical/Medical misadventures* 2,473 Other Transportation (excl. drownings) 2,086 Natural/Environmental factors 1,453 Firearms 1,441 Chronic pulmonary diseases 90,650 Pneumonia and influenza 77,860 Diabetes 48,951 Suicide** 30,810 HIV Infections (AIDS) 29,555 Homicide and legal intervention*** 26,513 Cirrhosis and other liver diseases 25,429 * A Harvard University study suggests 93,000 deaths annually related to medical negligence, excluding tens of thousands more deaths from non- hospital medical office/lab mistakes and thousands of hospital caused infections. ** Approximately 60% involve firearms. *** Approximately 60% involve firearms. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates 1,500-2,800 self-defense and justifiable homicides by civilians and 300-600 by police annually. THE REAL CAUSE OF CRIME - AND REAL SOLUTIONS America fails to incarcerate violent criminals. In 1960, 738 criminals were sent to prison for every 1,000 violent crimes, but by 1980, the number of criminals sent to prison per 1,000 violent crimes dropped to 227, and the crime rate tripled. Over 60,000 criminals convicted of violent crime every year _ murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault _ are not sent to prison. Of America's 4.3 million convicted criminals, only 26% are in prison. The remaining 74% are serving "sentences" of parole or probation, free on the streets. Since lower incarceration rates are mostly due to prison overcrowding, CrimeStrike lobbied successfully to increase prison capacity in Texas, Mississippi, Virginia and nearly tripled the funds allocated for state prison construction in the 1994 Federal Crime Bill. Criminals who are incarcerated are freed too early, serving on average only one-third of their sentences. The average time served is: for murder, 7.7 years; rape, 4.6 years; robbery 3.3 years; and aggravated assault,1.9 years. Every day in America, 14 people will be murdered, 48 women raped and 578 robbed by convicted criminals on parole or early release from prison. CrimeStrike helped win passage of Truth-In-Sentencing laws in Arizona, Mississippi and Virginia, preventing early release by requiring violent criminals to serve 85% of their sentences. Additionally, CrimeStrike blocked the paroles of individual murderers in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas and West Virginia. Juvenile crime has reached crisis proportions: Between 1980 and 1990, the number of juveniles arrested for heroin/cocaine rose 713%. Over the last five years, juvenile gang killings increased 208%. Yet only 1.5% of juvenile offenders were sent to adult or criminal court in 1991 and, of those, 85.3% were not sent to prison. CrimeStrike helped win passage of juvenile justice reform in Arkansas and Mississippi, requiring violent juvenile criminals who do "adult crime" to serve "adult time." Crime victims, or their survivors, are often treated as mere witnesses in court, unfairly barred from participating in the criminal justice process in any way. CrimeStrike worked for passage of Victims' Bill of Rights proposals in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri and New Mexico. Repeat offenders are a serious threat to public safety. The average criminal commits 187-287 crimes a year, resulting in over six million people becoming victims of violent crime _ murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault _ every year. CrimeStrike was instrumental in helping Washington State Initiative 593, the nation's first "Three Strike, You're Out" law, qualify for the ballot and then win passage by the largest margin in state history. CrimeStrike also provided grassroots support for the California "Three Strikes" law, which also won at the polls. U.S. COMPARED WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES * All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. (James D. Wright, et. al ., Under the Gun, 1983) "Gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.... Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America; not only does it depend on search and seizure too intrusive for American standards, it postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individual, egalitarian . . . American ethos." (David Kopel, "Foreign Gun Control in American Eyes," 1987) * Gun laws and firearms availability are unrelated to homicide or suicide rates. Most states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to their northern neighbors, despite much higher rates of firearms availability. While the American homicide rate is higher than most European nations, and firearms are frequently involved in American homicides, America's violent crime rates are even higher for crimes where guns are less often (robbery) or infrequently (rape) involved. The difference is violence, not firearms, and America's system of revolving door justice. * England now has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its repressive laws, yet its politicians have responded to rising crime by further restricting rifles and shotguns. During the past dozen years, handgun-related robbery has risen 200% in Britain, five times as fast as the rise in the U.S. * Japan's low homicide rate is accompanied by a suicide rate much higher than that of the United States, despite Japan's virtual gun ban. And Japan's low crime rate is attributable to police-state type law enforcement which would be opposed by Americans. * Anti-gunners' comparisons of homicide in Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., ignore the fact that non-Hispanic whites have a lower homicide rate in Seattle than in Vancouver, and that Vancouver's homicide rate, and handgun use in homicide, did not go down following Canada's adoption of a "tough" gun law. SEMI-AUTOMATICS & SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" * In a deliberate effort to have public policy made by deception, anti- gunners invented the "assault weapon" issue, noting that the public could not readily distinguish full-auto firearms _ sharply restricted by federal law since 1934 _ from semi-auto firearms. No legally-owned full auto firearm has ever been used in a violent crime by a civilian. Semi-autos are very difficult to convert to full auto and such conversion is a federal felony. Semi-autos which are "easy to convert" are not approved by the BATF for sale to the public. * Data from states and big cities show that military look-alikes constitute 0-3% of guns used in crime and constitute only 1.5% of guns seized by police. Rifles, including semi-autos, are involved in only 3% of homicides. * BATF traces tell nothing about the types of guns used by criminals, since only 1% of guns used in violent crimes are traced, and even that 1% is not randomly selected.(Congressional Research Service) * Anti-gunners' hypocrisy: Claiming that handguns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they have no militia purpose, they support banning rifles and shotguns which do. Their ultimate goal is total gun prohibition. NOTABLE GUN LAW FAILURES Since enacting a virtual handgun ban in 1976, Washington, D.C.'s murder rate has risen 200%, with a 300% rise in handgun-related homicide, as handgun use went from less than 60% of killings to 83%. No gun law in any city, state or nation has ever reduced violent crime, or slowed its rate of growth, compared to similar jurisdictions. With less than 3% of the U.S. population, New York City annually accounts for more than one-eighth of the nation's handgun- related homicides. Since it became a felony to go outside the city to evade its virtual handgun ban, the homicide rate in N.Y.C has risen three times faster than the rest of the country's. Gun rationing schemes have failed miserably. In 1975, South Carolina limited handgun sales to individuals to one per month. Since then, South Carolina's violent crime rate has skyrocketed over 100%. I think the framers understood that this right was necessary for individuals to protect themselves from tyranny. It is obvious if you consider what they had just went through. Just prior to the revolution the British tried to disarm the colonists. -------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all Edited by mntlfngrs (09/02/02 11:19 PM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Technically, in the US vs Miller, the ruling was that the weapons must be in comman usage by the military
And tanks arn't? This is very odd. You've been arguing for the last 20 posts that the reason we are armed is so we can "defend" ourselves against tyrants. Pardon the language but what the fuck are you gonna do against a tyrant in control of an airforce and hundreds of tank divisions with your saturday night special? This point comprehensively destroys your "argument" regarding "defending ourselves against tyrants". Now what were your other points? I may as well destroy those while I'm at it... -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Why do you think I shouldn't be allowed to keep my 12 guage under the bed that I use for home defence and sleep well at night? Why don't you thnk I should be allowed to use that same shotgun to shoot clay disks and rabbits and deer when they're in season? Why do you hate my freedom so much?
Maybe you're an ok guy rail gun. It's the guy who lives down the street from you who'se just been fired from the post office I worry about. In England the most he could do would be to swing a baseball bat at the boss. In America he'll go back with his AK-47 and wipe out 23 of his co-workers. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: Did you miss this part of my previous reply? *Technically, in the US vs Miller, the ruling was that the weapons must be in comman usage by the military. However, even if we could find someone willing to sell us a tank or a blackhawk, who could afford one. I'd love to have a helicopter.* And we are allowed to own tanks. The military won't sell one with a functional weapons system, but tanks we can buy. In reply to: Wrong again. I've been arguing that the second ammendment protects an individuals right to own firearms. Defense against tyranny was but one of the many reasons that right is so important. But it's no surprise to me that you fail to see the difference. In reply to: Ask anyone of numerous peoples who have fought against a more powerful invading army. Will I run up to a tank with a .38 special and open fire? No, of course not. With armed resistance more powerful weapons can and would be taken from those who posess them. I expected a question from you with at least a touch of thought behind it. You've destroyed no points at all in your posts, be they mine or anyone elses. And you still have not backed up your points. And it would seem you can't count either as I haven't made 20 posts in this thread. You go on believing as you will. Your arguements are invalid as are your methods of presenting them. Many of the posters in this thread have backed up their position from many sources. You have failed to do so. Your opinions are what you wish them to be, even if you can't back them up you're free to have them. There are none so blind as those who will not see. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
Ask anyone of numerous peoples who have fought against a more powerful invading army. Will I run up to a tank with a .38 special and open fire? No, of course not. With armed resistance more powerful weapons can and would be taken from those who posess them.
OK, lets start with the Taliban. They had rifles and handguns. How effective were they against F16's and daisy-cutter bombs? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Winky Stranger Registered: 09/04/02 Posts: 5 Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Doesn't the U.S. code pretty clearly define "militia"?
I'm not really sure how there can be so much confusion about it since it clearly mentions an "unorganized militia" as well as the national guard. Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 The 2nd amendment doesn't justify anything (referring to the unfortunate title of this thread), it just allows the citizenry to keep weapons should they be necessary for overthrowing an unspecified foreign or domestic threat. Just because one can constructs a "probable" futile scenario in which the entirety of the US military up against some yahoos with rifles does not negate the value of an armed citizenry. It's like asking somebody why they have a fire extingusher when it is useless for putting out the fire in a house that is fully engulfed in flames. -Winky
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: Basically, you want to take away my freedom because of what someone else *might* do. At least that's an honest answer... -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
mr freedom enthusiast Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 232 Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I won't bother you with my own constitutional research; it has been given, perfectly I might add, by others.
The taliban was able to kill over 3000 people without firing a single shot. What would have happend with an armed pilot? School shootings: I am in a hurry so I will include a link and a few short lines of just one school shooting where the body count was greatly reduced because someone else, someone NOT considering killing innocent people, was armed. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml Writing in Friday's edition of the New York Post, Lott reported on last week's shooting at Appalachian School of Law. Nigerian student Peter Odighizuwa is accused of killing the dean, L. Anthony Sutin, 42 – a former acting assistant U.S. attorney general and campaign worker for Bill Clinton – professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and student Angela Denise Dales, 33. Noting that the rampage was widely covered in the world's media, Lott wrote: "As usual, there were calls for more gun control. "Yet in this age of 'gun-free school zones,' the vast majority of news reports ignored the fact that the attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars. The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported. Almost forgot. To the topic at hand. No, the second ammendment does not give the individual the right to shoot any official engaged in the lawful carrying out of their jobs. This does not preclude armed rebellion, but does limit that to a concensus of the majority of citizens, I think. Until such time, we are limited to closet rebellion. Considering the nature and scope of the government propeganda machine, I doubt that there are more than several hundred thousand people in this nation, that would be willing to fight for thier rights; the rest are cowards in need of protection from the slave owners.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Basically, you want to take away my freedom because of what someone else *might* do. At least that's an honest answer...
So why are you so keen on taking away Saddams freedom for something he "might" do? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported.
That's cool. I just don't want my kids lives dependent on a couple of students opening fire around him. I want him in a country like England where school shootings havn't happened since the gun control laws were tightened. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
So why are you so keen on taking away Saddams freedom for something he "might" do?
So now you change the subjet to somthing completely unrelated. For the record I don't want to take away his freedom. I want him killed and democracy installed in place of his tyranical regime of terror. Iraq is officially at war with Israel. I say, lets destroy them for that, and for gassing the Kurds, and financing terrorist attacks in Jerusalem (conclusivly proved), and for being a hostile dictatorship just one year away from having nuclear weapons. Now back to the subject at hand. If a postal worker was so inclined he could make a bomb and blow up his work just like anyone else. Gun control does not prevent violent crime. It has been proven it displaces it and increases it. Remember when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. MOLON LABE!!! -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, Edited by Ellis Dee (09/04/02 06:55 PM)
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
That's cool. I just don't want my kids lives dependent on a couple of students opening fire around him. I want him in a country like England where school shootings havn't happened since the gun control laws were tightened.
Are you aware that their rate of violent crime is now the greatest of all industrialized nations. It has occurred since their gun control laws were tightened as well. If your kids are in England they have a greater chance of being raped or otherwise violently victimized than if they're in the USA. Nothing like unarmed kids to rape, right? Just curious, where do you live? You realy seem to love the UK from all the praise... -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
uno enthusiast  Registered: 04/06/02 Posts: 448 Last seen: 6 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
You are absolutely right luvdemshrooms!!! I'm 150% sure that my friend that was robbed a few hours ago by gunpoint in his own apartment totally agrees with you!!! When the guy stuck the gun in his face and cocked back the trigger I bet the first thing that ran through my best friends mind was, "Thank god we live in a country where this wonderful person can make a living and own a gun!"
I'm sure his opinion stayed equally as happy for our gun right when he got pistol whipped in the mouth several times and was beaten with a fist at said gun point. What a great and glorious night that must have been for him! Let's all take a moment to praise America's innovative(though most would call completely insane, but wtf do they know?) gun laws! *Do not even try to make the argument that he should have had a gun at the ready. He was in his living room, 2 ft from the door when they busted in. If you can somehow rationlise this as being OK, please let me know... I've been grilling myself on it all night. If those guys DID NOT have a gun, imagine how the situation would have been different. Most people can handle a knife. I'm eagerly awaiting your response as well as all the other gun nuts out there. -------------------- - uno
| |||||||
|
uno enthusiast Registered: 04/06/02 Posts: 448 Last seen: 6 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
In reply to: Gasp!!! Is this saying that women aren't allowed to wield guns?! This goes in direct opposition of your earlier statement about women needing guns against bigger muggers. Am I simply misinterpereting the written word? I definitely would not be the first. -------------------- - uno
| |||||||
|
uno enthusiast Registered: 04/06/02 Posts: 448 Last seen: 6 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
In reply to: Alex, please correct me if I'm wrong, but all of this part of his statement is legal in England. -------------------- - uno
| |||||||
|
uno enthusiast Registered: 04/06/02 Posts: 448 Last seen: 6 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
In reply to: Don't you want to invade Iraq in case they might develop WoMD? -------------------- - uno
| |||||||
|
Winky Stranger Registered: 09/04/02 Posts: 5 Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
"Most people can handle a knife"
Most surprised, unarmed people CANNOT handle two knife-wielding men. Your firend was jumped and beaten and he would have been whether or not guns existed in the world. By the way, gun prohibition (if that's what you're getting at here) would likely spawn an even larger black market than we already have. Government laws cannot change the laws of supply and demand (and there IS a large demand for guns in America which is mostly satisfied by legal sales). The government cannot enforce drug prohibition, and it would not be able to enforce gun prohibition in America either. Such prohibition would only ensure that people who are willing to break the law have guns. Guns aren't the problem, assholes are, and America has a lot of them. -WInky
| |||||||
|
Winky Stranger Registered: 09/04/02 Posts: 5 Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
"Gasp!!! Is this saying that women aren't allowed to wield guns?! This goes in direct opposition of your earlier statement about women needing guns against bigger muggers. Am I simply misinterpereting the written word? I definitely would not be the first."
Although the ruling does not mention women, I do not see a prohibition on women or old people from owning guns as you seem to believe was implied. -Winky
| |||||||
|
Winky Stranger Registered: 09/04/02 Posts: 5 Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
"Don't you want to invade Iraq in case they might develop WoMD?"
This is a fallacious argument: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque -Winky
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Those ad hominem webpages seem to have attracted so many people lately...
 The point was..Rail Gun is all for attacking Saddam because he might pose a threat. Now god forbid, but if Rail Gun loses his job tomorrow and he gets to brooding while cradling that AK-47 and decides to go down the local Macdonalds for some payback then he poses a threat to me. The only way I have of neutralising that threat is removing those guns from him. Sure guns would be good if you could only give them to people who never lose their temper and never have any mental problems in life. Unfortunately that isn't possible. And i'm sorry but a deranged asshole with an AK-47 is a fuck of a lot more deadly than an asshole with a baseball bat. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
If a postal worker was so inclined he could make a bomb and blow up his work just like anyone else. Gun control does not prevent violent crime.
I'll take that risk. If there's someone deranged enough to spend months acquiring explosives and studying how to build a bomb we're talking one in several million. Usually by the time they've worked out how you make a bomb they've got another job. The risk I'm not prepared to take is a postal worker who has just been sacked and is feeling emotionally devastated walking into his home and seeing on the wall enough guns and ammo to wipe out half a town. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
So if they crooks had a knife and stabbed him, that would make you hate knives?
In reply to: Sure they can. Maybe you and Alex can. I'm partially disabled with almost no balance. I'll take a gun thanks. So will many women I know. And what if three or more guys assaulted your friend with knives. Can you or even the almighty Alex handle several attackers? No-one I know has ever claimed a gun was a magic answer for all situations. How might the situation have been different? Well if the scumbag who hurt your friend had a knife, perhaps he might have thought he could handle him and only found out midway through the struggle that he couldn't. Or perhaps while the scumbag was distracted he could have gotten to a gun. There are many ways this senario could have ended differently, some better, some worse. I don't know your friend but I'm glad he wasn't killed. In reply to: Yes you are. If the quote had been mine then you'd have a point. Since I merely pasted previously written words, this comment of yours was just silly. -------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: You can pick up diesel fuel and amminium nitrate in about 15 minutes. Those are the ingrediants used by McVeigh. A internet search will turn up the instructions in a matter of minutes. So now the guy with the bomb can kill hundreds at one shot. Yes.... sounds like a better idea to me. In reply to: Yes... much better he build a bomb or drive a car through a schoolyard full of kids and takes out several of them. I'm sure the childrens parents will feel much better knowing the dead kids weren't killed with a gun. -------------------- 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
| |||||||
|
Winky Stranger Registered: 09/04/02 Posts: 5 Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: Perhaps you are saying that Rail Gun is a hypocrite, and that's fine, but the issue of going after Saddam is unrelated to state control of individuals' freedom to own firearms (aside from illustrating RailGuns hypocrisy that is). I personally am not educated enough on Iraq to take a stand on the subject. If it were possible to remove guns from the populace, perhaps it would make things safer. Mass murderers would make bombs instead (mass murder does not contribute much to overall violent death anyway no matter how much it is sensationalized in the media), but smaller scale killings would probably decrease. However, it is not possible for a law to eliminate guns. People who are willing to break the law, many of whom the same people who commit crimes with guns now, will be able to get them through a black market. The US has failed to keep illegal drugs out of the country so far and I do not see the situation being any different with a "War on Guns." -Winky
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
You can pick up diesel fuel and amminium nitrate in about 15 minutes. Those are the ingrediants used by McVeigh. A internet search will turn up the instructions in a matter of minutes. So now the guy with the bomb can kill hundreds at one shot. Yes.... sounds like a better idea to me.
Somehow I think you'll find it's not quite as easy as that. The IRA were making bombs for 30 years and their bomb making experts were still regularly blowing themselves up. Yes... much better he build a bomb or drive a car through a schoolyard full of kids and takes out several of them I think kids have got more chance of getting out of the way of a car than a guy aiming an AK at them. Do you seriously think the kids at Columbine would have killed as many if they'd gone into the schoolyard in their car? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/05/02 06:53 PM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Sure they can. Maybe you and Alex can. I'm partially disabled with almost no balance. I'll take a gun thanks
You'll take the gun but so will your attacker. And remember the person attacking ALWAYS has the element of surprise. So the chance of being able to reach down and draw your gun when someone says "Hands up" from behind is zero. Or perhaps while the scumbag was distracted he could have gotten to a gun And then you drop the gun in the struggle and your attacker, who didn't have a gun to start with, picks it up and runs off with it. After shooting you in both kneecaps as a punishment for pulling a gun on him. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son  Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
What's the point of all these scenarios where the guy sneaks up behind you and says "Hands up," or where you MIGHT drop the gun, the intruder MIGHT get to it before you can, then shoot you in the kneecaps or whatever. Sure, that MIGHT happen. What is a lot more LIKELY to happen is you point the gun at him and he beats a hasty retreat.
As for the right to self defense... In a struggle between someone who wants to maim or kill you, there is no such thing as "fair play". I don't care if he is armed with a baseball bat, a butterfly knife, a TASER, a can of pepper spray or his bare hands -- if he broke into my place with the intention of harming me and mine, I'll do whatever it takes to prevent it. If it comes down to an actual shootout in the living room, so be it. But if I point a loaded gun at some guy waving a knife, and fire it if necessary, the odds are pretty damn good that I'll get out of the situation with no injuries. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
What is a lot more LIKELY to happen is you point the gun at him and he beats a hasty retreat.
Actually you'll find that all the studies show that if you arm people they feel invulnerable and take risks they would never dream of taking if they didn't have the gun. The absolute worst way of protecting women and children from danger is giving them guns to carry around with them. They take massive risks because they think "I've got a gun I'll be ok". This is a similar argument to the one about safety in cars. I bet you're a big believer in airbags and making cars as safe as they can be right? WRONG. If people feel invulnerable they take massive risks. The most effective safety addition to any car is a foot long steel spike sticking out of the driving wheel. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Actually you'll find that all the studies show that if you arm people they feel invulnerable and take risks they would never dream of taking if they didn't have the gun.
"ALL the studies"? WHAT studies might those be? As for taking risks... is it riskier to point a gun at an intruder and tell him to get the fuck out or you'll blow his ass away or to hide in your closet and hope he just wants to swipe your silverware rather than kidnap your child? I bet you're a big believer in airbags... You lose that bet. ... and making cars as safe as they can be right? Within reason. The seat/shoulder belt system is effective and inexpensive, and I personally would not drive a car that wasn't equipped with it. The most effective safety addition to any car is a foot long steel spike sticking out of the driving wheel. If you really believe that, you're insane. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
As for taking risks... is it riskier to point a gun at an intruder
Guns write people an awful lot of cheques their ass can't cash. Give your daughter a gun and she thinks she's invulnerable. Instead of coming home at 10pm in a taxi she thinks "I'm packin, I'll walk it at 2am". Muggers don't tend to walk up to you shouting "Hey, I'm going to mug you in 10 minutes, you'd better get your gun ready". Not to mention how many people freeze instead of shooting someone. 70% of combat troops freeze when they see the enemy. Imagine how many young women are going to freeze. And very few people would be able to draw a gun, turn and hit the target with the pressure of a guy running at them from behind. If you really believe that, you're insane. Sorry man, but if you had a spike in your steering wheel you would drive slower, leave bigger gaps between cars, look more carefully before pulling out etc. The studies have shown that the more safety devices you introduce in cars the higher the accident rate goes. People drive like maniacs when they think they are protected from harm. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Give your daughter a gun and she thinks she's invulnerable. Instead of coming home at 10pm in a taxi she thinks "I'm packin, I'll walk it at 2am".
Which studies show she will do this? Source, please. Muggers don't tend to walk up to you shouting "Hey, I'm going to mug you in 10 minutes, you'd better get your gun ready". a) It doesn't take ten minutes to draw a gun. b) My examples involved home invasions, not walking down the street. Sorry man, but if you had a spike in your steering wheel you would drive slower, leave bigger gaps between cars, look more carefully before pulling out etc. LOL! So you really were serious? Okay. NOW I understand how you can post some of the other comments you do. What happens when you get rear-ended by some drunken fool? Or when a truck in the oncoming lane blows a tire and swerves into your lane? Both have happened to me. There was literally no way I could have avoided either situation. The studies have shown that the more safety devices you introduce in cars the higher the accident rate goes. Ah... the infamous "studies" once again. I repeat, WHICH STUDIES are these? Certainly not the NHTSA studies, which show that each year since the 55 mph speed limit has been eliminated in the United States, the accident rate per mile driven is decreasing. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Which studies show she will do this? Source, please
Not this again. The last time i gave you a source you never posted in the thread again for fear of having to face the truth. What happens when you get rear-ended by some drunken fool? Would a drunk get in a car knowing there was a foot long steel spike an inch away from his heart? Think about it. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
mr freedom enthusiast Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 232 Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Ok, I have difficulty in removing constitutional arguments from my political discussions but I will try.
The primary defence of handguns is and always has been, self defense. Perhaps in your world the police and authoritys are very fast in responding to your plight, that is not true here. In the U.S., the authoritys are to busy tearing up marijuana gardens. The primary argument AGAINST handguns is that "they are more likely to be used against the owner of the gun, or the owners family". I can't argue this point, I have no statistics that are not disputed by the NRA(lifetime member ) or these researchers: I can't dispute these facts, nor would I try, the question as to handgun ownership is not about what they MIGHT be used for but for what they are INTENDED to be used for. In this country, a long time ago, free persons were held to a responsibility of defending themselves and their property, also to defend ones neighbors and property. This responsibility goes hand in hand with the right to be free from intrusion in our lives by those that would injure us in any way; this INCLUDES government agencies. This RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY has been, mostly, removed from todays society. We turn a blind eye to the violence and theft commited against our neighbors and they in turn ignore our plight. My first memory of violence was as a small child. My father was in the U.S. Navy and my mother and I were on base in San Diego, while he was at sea. I remember a woman screaming, and my mother ran outside, I was at the open door. I don't remember what the woman was screaming, I was told later, I do remember that the sailors, that were on leave, were beating up some man, he was quite bloody when the shore patrol arrived. What was the woman screaming? Rape; that was what she was screaming, and her neighbors came to her defense in numbers, women as well as men. Go to any rape prevention center and read their pamplet on how to prevent rape. The pamplet tells women to scream FIRE, because no one responds to someone screaming rape or help. This sickens me, that people today would so eagerly give up their rights and ignore their RESPONSIBILITY to defend themselves and their neighbors. Instead they happily foist this responsibility on government and local police. The governments responsibility in the defense of my home is and must be limited, I MUST have the right to defend myself, my family, my property and my neighbors and, if neccesary, to defend myself from GOVERNMENT intrusion. This is the reason for people to own and be trained in the use of fire arms, all fire arms; M16's, M60's and my personal favorite the Action Arms UZI .45 caliber. The REASON for fire arm ownership is to allow us the right to defend ourselves and our neighbors from ANY invader; be that a rapist or a government gone bad. We are doing something wrong, we are allowing the U.S. government to become our protectors, like some European countrys. Our form of government isn'nt like any other in the world, but for it to work, it requires RESPONSIBILITY from its citizens. Said responsibilitys MUST include the right to defend ourselves. With this right there must also be the MEANS to defend ourselves and with the right to take a life, must necessarily come the RESPONSIBILITY of such an action. This responsibility issue has been drummed OUT of our childrens minds due to the, disgusting, government sponsored, dumbing down of school children. Children are know longer held to be accountable for their actions, nor, to be rational people learning to think for themselves. Gun ownership is a responsibility; we should accept it as such. THose who aren't afraid to, or who, like me, insist, on owning a small pistol or two, should be trained in their use and required to properly store them. Outside of this, the only logical solution would be to teach kids RESPONSIBILITY, both for themselves and for others. The debate on gun ownership is a moot point; we have them because we have the right and responsibility to defend ourselves. That others use guns to commit crimes cannot justify the suspension of the right to gun ownership, any more than say, some people that kill others with cars and strong drink. Those that commit these crimes suffer the consequences and "thats the name of that tune." I think the problem is noone asked you; How do you feel about self defense? What is your recommendation when one is confronted by violence? Should we try and run, and hope that the aggressor is out of shape? Should we give the person what they want and hope that it will be enough? How about if they want to have sex with your wife? Would this be enough to encourage you to fight back or would you fold your coat for your wifes head while you stand by helpless? I know my words are harsh; they are meant to be. I know that you, like most, would kill or die to protect a loved one. All I am alluding to is that YOU MUST have the RIGHT to defend yourself, and loved one, in such a situation; granted, a vastly unlikely situation, but none-the-less. Believe it or not, I agree with you. If guns were eliminated from the earth tomorrow the number of murders in the US would decline the very next day. However the NEXT day the murder rate would begin to go up again. Removing guns does not remove violence, what removes violence is the PEOPLES INTOLERENCE for it. We have yet to reach this level of sophistication. I realy don't mean to sound sarcastic, really, but your argument is fantasy. Violence exits, in european countrys as well as the US. In other countrys murders are few but they are there, and many occur without the HORRIBLE VIOLENCE of a gun. My justification of guns is that they can enpower the weak, so that, even young women can walk in a park at sundown with some chance of coming home unmolested. I do not carry a concealed gun; I can't and have no neccesity of it. I hunt, with bow and gun, and I shoot targets to keep a good eye. I am not a small person; by any means. The possibility of my being attacked is remote to say the least.(and God save the bastards soul cause that is all that will be left). But, does that leave us to tell a woman, or perhaps a more slight man, that they cannot venture where they will? Of course not. They, like myself, may venture where we will, but we should all be able to feel safe while doing so; and cops cannot do this. I am sure you think that you have studied U.S. history. But, I doubt that any history book, you read, will give any thing, other than some twisted notion, that guns are some obsolete method of self defense that is no longer required. I also understand that, without a history of individualism, and individual responsibility, which are not a factor in any country but this one, you will ever believe that a person should rely on himself and his neighbors; NOT THE GOVERNMENT for protection. There is no such thing as FAIR in a fight involving DEATH. This statement can be inclusive of the death of innocence. The right to your person's freedom from attack cannot be foisted on others, nor the government, it is YOUR responsibilty and if a gun will help; then get the best training available and go forth without fear. (but please get training so you don't accidently shoot me in the butt) From websters online: Main Entry: CIVILIZED Function: adjective Date: 1611 : characteristic of a state of civilization This denotes a civilization that has never and will never be. MY point is simple, guns are a NECCESARY defense for the weaker members of our society. Yes, there are ways in which guns may, one day, be unneccesary, but that day is long into the future. Violence exits, violence has nothing to do with guns, or steak knives, or tables, or chairs, or a tire iron, or a Louisville Slugger. Violence is an act perpetrated (in this discussion) by one human being on another. The stance that guns are not neccesary in a civilized society; I agree with. However, we DON'T live in a civilized society, and we may never live in such, hell, my great,great,great,great,great,great grandchildren may never live in a civilized society. If you can't own a gun, because of the country you live in, all I can say is take some hand to hand combat classes and stay out of parks at night; and thank god you are not a 105 pound woman. In the end fellows and ladys, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves how FAR they will go to defend themselves or loved ones. I am thankful that in this country a 105 pound woman, if she so chooses, may confidently defend herself against a 225 pound male by blowing of his fucking head OFF. If any one finds that this "offends their fragile sensibilitys", remember, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAIR IN A FIGHT INVOLVING DEATH.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
MY point is simple, guns are a NECCESARY defense for the weaker members of our society.
The trouble is there is no evidence arming the weaker members of society is any protection to them. On the contrary it is likely to lead them to take risks they wouldn't otherwise take because they consider themselves invulnerable. The best self-defence is keeping your wits about you and making sensible choices. The one in a million situation where you need a gun may happen, but if you arm everyone this means everytime you get road rage from someone in a car they jump out and start blasting lead through your windscreen. I'd rather no-one had the guns. Less danger for everyone. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
The trouble is there is no evidence arming the weaker members of society is any protection to them. On the contrary it is likely to lead them to take risks they wouldn't otherwise take because they consider themselves invulnerable. US Department of Justice figures provide the evidence you claim is non-existent. From an earlier post in this thread: "A Department of Justice-sponsored survey found that 40% of felons had chosen not to commit at least one specific crime for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims. U. S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that the protective use of a firearm lessens the chance that a rape, robbery or assault attempt will be successfully completed and also reduces the chance of injury to the intended victim." "States with favorable concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than states with restrictive concealed carry laws. Overall, the homicide rate for states with favorable carry laws is 31% lower, and the robbery rate is 36% lower, than for states with restrictive concealed carry laws. States which have recently changed their laws have experienced reductions in homicide rates. Since 1987, when Florida enacted a favorable CCW law, its homicide rate has dropped 22%, even while the national rate has risen 15%. " I'd rather no-one had the guns. Less danger for everyone. Agreed. But since predators DO have guns, the prey must have the right to them as well. From your posts it's obvious you are not naive. Surely you must know that no matter how many laws and regulations one puts in the way of the honest majority, the dishonest minority will always be able to obtain guns, since they don't abide by the law. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
As Bill Hicks put it "In England where no-one has guns there were 14 deaths from handguns. In America where everyone has guns there were 1500 deaths from handguns (I forget the exact figure Bill used). BUT there's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone with it. There's no conection at all there - and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one"
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/06/02 10:00 PM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Guns Banned in Britain; Crime Soars
In 1997, Britain banned the possession of all handguns, providing for 10 -year prison terms for any Englishman rash enough to get nabbed owning one. The British Government has even prohibited Brits from carrying anything they might use to defend themselves if set upon. The result of this insanity: The 1994 arrest of a homeowner for using a toy gun to detain a pair of home invasion burglars; A British oil company executive was convicted of carrying an "offensive weapon" because he used an ornamental sword to defend himself when he was attacked. Since Britain banned handguns, or anything that even looks like one, vicious criminals have come out of the woodwork to "prey on law abiding British citizens" wrote Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book "Guns and Violence: The English Experience." It's been some experience: During the first two years after the ban went into effect, the criminal use of guns in street crimes soared 40 percent; During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose an incredible 53 percent (in London these days the chances of getting mugged are six times greater than they are in New York City). It seems that the Brits are learning the truth of the old saying: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Another lesson the British need to learn is that the experience in the U.S. has proven that in pro-gun states where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, crime drops significantly. http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/9/6/152858 -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
The latest data provides us with a picture of gun deaths among children and youth in the United States in 1998.
3,761 children and teens were killed by gunfire, nearly 10 lives every day, one every two and one half hours. (3,792 without exclusions) 2,184 were murdered by gunfire. Fifty-eight percent of young people killed by gunfire are victims of homicide. (2,215 without exclusions) 1,241 committed suicide using a gun - more than three every day. Guns remain the most common method of suicide for children. Guns are used in two out of three youth suicides. Thirty-three percent of young people killed by guns take their own lives. 262 died from an unintentional or accidental shooting. Seven percent of young people were victims of an accidental shooting. A study reported in the American Journal of Public Health found that 1.4 million homes with 2.6 million children living in them had firearms that were stored unlocked and loaded or unlocked and unloaded but stored with ammunition. 74 died with intent undetermined. 609 of the young people killed were under the age of 15; 179 were under the age of 10; and 83 were under the age of 5. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of firearm deaths among American children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. http://www.loga.org/GunPolicy.htm -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Alex... you actually posted a link! I knew you could do it. I bet your parents are so proud.
You forgot this part in your cut and paste though: *Between 1994 and 1998, youth firearms deaths dropped by 35 percent after peaking in 1994 at 5,793 young lives.* Funny.... more guns then ever but the death rate is dropping. In 1997, the total number of children, ages 0-14 killed by firearms (all causes) was 629 or 1.7 per day. National Center for Health Statistics, 1997 Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase. Kopel, Guns: Who Should Have Them?, at 311 and National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 18. Children 14 and under are over 21 times more likely to die in an automobile, and nearly 8 times more likely to drown than die in an accident with a gun. Data compiled from National Health Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999 Only 2.1% (or about 2 of every 100) of all accidental deaths in children 14 and under occur from firearms. Data compiled from National Health Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999 "Less that 1% of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school." CDC, Facts About Violence Among Youth and Violence in Schools. May 21, 1998 Of 20 million middle-school and high-school students, fewer than a dozen have killed at school this year. Of 20,000 secondary schools nationwide, only about 10 have reported a murder on campus... Los Angeles Times Opinion column May 31, 1998 In 1997, 25 killings occurred in schools. That same year, 88 people were killed by lightning. Los Angeles Daily News (June 5, 1998) Despite the low number of gun accidents among children , most of these fatalities are not truly 'accidents.' Many such accidents are misnamed -- those 'accidents' actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse. Kleck, Point Blank, at 271, 276 Self Defense Statistics Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime As many as 200,000 of the 2.5 million are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime In 1993 'only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high. Newsweek, November 15, 1993 In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm. Thus, armed women will usually have a decided advantage against their attackers. Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, (1990), at 29, citing U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation. Kleck, 'Crime Control,' at 13. 85% of Americans believe people should have the right to use firearms to defend themselves in their homes, 64% favor allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection outside their homes, and 72% favor stiffer sentences for criminals who use a gun in crime rather then more gun laws. Survey of voters, Lawrence Research, 1998. -------------------- 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 (09/07/02 11:01 AM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
I think this is the only one we need to know:
3,761 children and teens were killed by gunfire, nearly 10 lives every day, one every two and one half hours. (3,792 without exclusions) -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
During the first two years after the ban went into effect, the criminal use of guns in street crimes soared 40 percent;
Can you for once provide a link for this evidence apart from the very open-minded newsmax site? It sounds like a load to me. Here is some official information rather than fundamentalist make-believe: In the two years since the destruction of 162,000 civilian-owned handguns, official figures show that stricter British gun laws were followed by a 17% reduction in all crimes involving firearms, excluding air guns. -- (UK Home Office Statistical Bulletin 22/99, 26 Nov 1999; Table 10) As the UK handgun ban took effect, the most closely-related category of crime also dropped: ?The number of handgun offences? fell by 21% in 1997, near which level they have remained.? -- (UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England & Wales, 1998; 3.10. Mar 2000) The number of gun-related deaths has also declined markedly. In 1998/99, 49 people were victims of firearm homicide in Britain, down 66% since 1993. -- (UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England & Wales, 1998. Mar 2000) The number of reported robberies in Britain has grown markedly in recent years. However, those who cite this fact rarely mention that, in the absence of large numbers of firearms in the community, 96-98% of these encounters bear no relation to guns. ?The proportion of robberies in which firearms were used in 1998/99 was 4.4%, continuing the recent downward trend? Some research suggests that the proportion of real guns used in robberies may be only about half the estimate obtained from the police.? -- (UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England & Wales, 1998; 3.13 & 3.25. Mar 2000) As only 2% to 4% of reported robberies in Britain involve a genuine firearm, the potential lethality of these encounters would seem to be greatly reduced. It is hard to see how the number of offences in which victims are threatened with knives, airguns, toy guns?or in one case a cucumber in a coat pocket?can be cited as evidence of a crime wave in Britain attributable to the removal of handguns from civilian ownership. Instead, the apparent displacement of robbery weapon from firearm to cucumber might be seen as worthy of encouragement. British citizens remain 50 times less likely to fall victim to gun homicide than Americans. British police officers are unarmed. None were seriously injured by firearms in 1998/99. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/07/02 03:03 PM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Your source uses that number, it is highly exaggerated. Please note the red highlighted section. Frankly if you were to just admit that you think guns should be banned simply because you don't like them at least I could respect that as your opinion. However by trying to make a piss poor arguement, which you can't back up with facts (when you even try), you make yourself appear quite the fool.
Now despite the fact that logic seems to have no affect on you, lets try anyway. 1. Speeding is illegal.... has that stopped it? 2. Drugs are usually illegal... has that stopped it? 3. Rape is illegal... has that stopped it? 4. Robbery is illegal... has that stopped it? 5. Add the illegal activity of your choice here... has it stopped? Now let's try a multiple choice.... 6. Guns are banned.... does that____________ a. stop the use of guns? b. cause dancing in the streets? c. ensure that only criminals have guns? Any answer other than c will show you have no grasp upon reality. ____________________________________________ http://www.guntruths.com/Silver/million_mom_deception.htm DECEPTION: "TWELVE KIDS A DAY ARE KILLED BY GUNFIRE." Fact: This figure is grossly inflated and includes crime-prone adults. This falsehood was first promulgated by Handgun Control, Inc. and quickly echoed by Pres. Clinton. To arrive at the number "12," HCI had to include 18- and 19-year old adults?a group with a very high violent crime rate. Fact: The actual number, including suicides and accidents, is much less. Among persons aged 0-17 (what most would consider to be "children"), there were 2,284 gun-related deaths in 1997 (suicide, murder and accident). That?s about 6.2 deaths per day. While still a very sobering number, it is far lower than the "12 kids per day" claimed by Sen. Feinstein. Moreover, if "children" are considered to be 15 and younger, there were 972 deaths, which is 2.66 per day. [source: F.B.I.?s Uniform Crime Reports and the National Safety Council?s 1998 Accident Facts] Fact: Accidental shooting deaths among children is extremely rare. In 1997, there were a total of 20 accidental shooting deaths of kids ages 0 to 4; 24 deaths for ages 5 to 9; and 94 deaths for ages 10 to 14. Combined, that totals 138 accidental shooting deaths per year, and 0.38 such deaths per day for children, a tiny fraction of the 12 or 13 deaths per day claimed by HCI. [source: 1998 Accident Facts] Fact: Swimming pools kill far more children than do shooting accidents. In 1997, 1,060 children aged 0 to 14 drowned and 138 died in accidental shootings. May we expect one million moms to march to ban pools? [source: 1998 Accident Facts] Fact: Most murders of children involve weapons other than firearms. In 1997, for children up to 16 years, 319 were murdered with hands or feet, 69 with blunt objects, 83 with knives, and 287 with other weapons, for a total of 758. By contrast, firearms were used in the murders of 473 children. Thus, firearms were used in 38 percent of the 1231 murders, showing that a person intent committing murdering will do so with or without a gun. [source: 1998 Uniform Crime Reports] DECEPTION: GUN CONTROL REDUCES VIOLENT CRIME Fact: Gun control increases violent crime. Americans use firearms to thwart some 2.5 million violent crimes annually. However, while violent criminals ignore gun control laws, their law-abiding victims don?t. Thus, if these would-be victims were disarmed, thousands of the 2.5 million rapes, robberies and murders which are currently prevented because the victim is armed, would be completed each year. [source: "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Florida State University Prof. Gary Kleck] Fact: Being armed with a firearm is the safest response to a violent criminal. Violent crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm suffer lower rates of injury than do those who resist without a firearm, and even lower than those who comply with a criminal's demands. [source: "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," by Prof. Gary Kleck] DECEPTION: THE "PROLIFERATION" OF FIREARMS LEADS TO HIGHER VIOLENT CRIME RATES Fact: The violent crime rate is decreasing even as Americans buy millions of guns. According to the F.B.I., the violent crime in the U.S. has hit a 30-year low. Yet, as often mentioned by Sen. Feinstein, Americans buy millions of new guns each year. This alone proves that the proliferation of firearms does not lead to increased violent crime. Fact: Firearms are used less often in murders. The rate in which guns were used to commit murders decreased from 67.8 percent in 1997 to 64.9 percent in 1998. During that period, Americans bought some 2 million more guns. If anything, this proves gun "proliferation" reduces murder. [source: 1998 Uniform Crime Reports] Fact: There is no correlation between a country?s firearms ownership and its murder rate. Some countries with strict gun control have high murder rates, while others with liberal gun laws have low rates. It is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than does the U.S. Similarly, guns are strictly controlled in South Africa, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the U.S. By contrast, Israel and Switzerland have widespread access to firearms but only a fraction of the U.S. murder rate. [source: United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook] Fact: Americans are simply more violent. In 1998, there were 6.3 murders (per 100,000) in the U.S. Of these, 4.1 involved firearms, and 2.2 involved other weapons. That same year, Japan?s total murder rate was .6 and Canada?s was 1.7. Thus, the U.S. non-gun murder rate was four times that of Japan and 22 percent higher than that of Canada. DECEPTION: THE PROLIFERATION OF GUNS LEADS TO HIGHER SUICIDE RATES Fact: Most firearms-related deaths are suicides, and gun control does not reduce suicide. Fifty-two percent of all U.S. gun-related deaths are suicides. However, if the "proliferation" of guns actually led to more suicide, countries without guns should have lower suicide rates. The opposite is true. Japan, with strict gun control and virtually no firearms, has a suicide rate of 16.7 per 100,000. Canada, which also has strict gun control, has a rate of 13.4. By contrast, in the U.S., "awash with guns," the rate is 11.1. This proves that eliminating firearms does not reduce the suicide rate. [source: United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook, 1998 Uniform Crime Reports, 1998 Accident Facts] DECEPTION: IMPOSING A "FEW, SIMPLE, TARGETED" MEASURES WILL REDUCE GUN CRIME Fact: Trigger locks, background checks and bans on high-capacity magazines won?t reduce violent crime. Obviously, no law will make parents act responsibly, or violent criminals become good citizens. Thus, a trigger lock law will not prevent a 6-year-old from shooting a classmate with a stolen gun, and a background check will not stop a criminal from buying weapons on the black market. A ban on high-capacity magazines will not prevent anything. Rather, these laws simply make it harder for peaceable citizens to defend themselves. Fact: The only way to reduce gun violence is for parents to raise responsible citizens. If moms want to reduce gun violence (or, for that matter, all violence), they?d be much better off spending Mother?s Day at home teaching their children values and how to be responsible, respectful and honorable citizens. ______________________________________ More from NewMax. You don't have to like my sources. NewsMax just prints what others have to say. Just because it doesn't mesh with what you want to hear is of no concern to me. *Echoes of 'Fahrenheit 451' Haunt England Dr. Michael S. Brown Aug. 4, 2002 "Fahrenheit 451," Ray Bradbury's famous novel of a totalitarian future where books are burned is being acted out in England. But instead of destroying books, authorities seek out and destroy guns owned by citizens in defiance of the national ban. Those who remember Bradbury's book know the way that subtle alterations of terminology and a slow erosion of common sense can pervert an entire society to the point that it destroys itself in the quest for perfection. In this case, the perfection they seek is a society without violence, but like all utopian experiments this one, too, is doomed to failure. A chilling article appeared recently in the Sun describing how several ordinary, middle-class men were arrested for keeping guns hidden in their homes in violation of the ban. The article was loaded with propaganda terms reminiscent of Bradbury's imagination. Two retired teachers were called "gun-mad," "gun obsessives" and "gun nuts." Other arrestees were an engineer and fireman. A photo of Dunblane murderer Thomas Hamilton, labeled "monster," was included to further vilify and stereotype the violators. It is fascinating to read the growing flood of news reports in the British press about the exploding rate of violent crime in the UK, especially gun crime. Many stories about gun crimes mention the harsh gun laws enacted after the "Dunblane Massacre" in 1996. The reporters seem perplexed at the failure of these laws to reduce crime, but never seem to make the connection that would occur to most Americans. Scholars Joseph Olsen and David Kopel pointed out a few years ago the uncanny relationship between the enactment of English gun laws and subsequent increases in crime. Even a small child could look at the 100-year graph showing the crime rate vs. gun laws and see the tragic conclusion. A new book by respected history professor Joyce Lee Malcom explains how twin attacks on gun rights and self-defense rights have made England into the most crime-ridden country in the developed world. The strictest gun laws on the planet have effectively disarmed law-abiding citizens, allowing criminals to run amok with illegally owned guns, knives and even fake guns. Instead of a gun-free society, they have created a situation where guns are more useful and valuable to criminals than ever before. A thriving black market imports guns from Eastern Europe and distributes makeshift guns produced by local craftsmen out to make a quick pound. 'In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Is King' Criminals are now certain that citizens have no effective means to resist an armed attack. The gun-armed criminal is thus a king free to rape and plunder at will. At least Britain deserves credit for thoroughness. In contrast with American practice, where the rich and famous are effectively exempt from gun laws, English gun controls are so tight that even celebrities are unarmed, leading to many reports of celebrity mansion burglaries and street assaults. Attempts to counter this avalanche of crime with more police are hampered by limited budgets and a liberal criminal justice system. Thousands of video surveillance cameras have sprouted everywhere, reducing privacy but failing to provide the desired protection. Laws against self-defense have sent to jail Englishmen who would have been hailed as crime-fighting heroes in America. Years of expenditures and sacrifice have simply created the world's safest working conditions for criminals. Instead of repealing the counterproductive laws, English politicians prefer to pile on more laws outlawing knives, air guns and toys. Their utter faith in government and their complete ignorance of human nature is stunning. Americans have good reason to point at our English cousins and laugh as they laughed at us during the era of alcohol prohibition, but I suggest we thank them for conducting one of the great social experiments of our time. By showing the counterproductive nature of gun control, they are teaching us a powerful lesson. We can only hope they see the light before their society is too badly damaged. Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, www.dsgl.org. E-mail the author at rkba2000@yahoo.com. References "Gun-Mad Teachers Arrested" http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002260304,00.html "All the Way Down the Slippery Slope" Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html "Guns and Violence, The English Experience" Joyce Lee Malcom, Harvard University Press http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MALGUN.html Gun crime stories from the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/england/1765622.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/police.stm -------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Fear in Britain
They have no guns so they have a lot of crime. Dr. Paul Gallant Dr. Joanne Eisen Dave Kopel 7/18/00 The furor over the Philadelphia police encounter with a would-be carjacker and cop-killer isn't the only public-relations nightmare facing the city's police department. Two thousand reported sex crimes went "uninvestigated" by Philadelphia police between 1995 and 1997 because of "pressure to keep the department's crime numbers low," reported ABC News on July 11. Earlier this year, the department admitted "misreporting" thousands of sexual assaults during the past decade "to make the city appear safer than it was." Actually, Philadelphia is not the only city to underreport crime in recent years. The 1994 Clinton/Schumer crime bill has resulted in lots of federal dollars for local police departments and also lots of pressure to get crime statistics down so that the federal government can announce the success of its policy of federalizing crime control. But when it comes to fudging crime statistics, even the finest Philadelphia number-rearranger can't compare to our British cousins. During the nineteenth century, and most of the twentieth, Britain enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as an unusually safe and crime-free nation, compared to the United States or continental Europe. No longer. To the great consternation of British authorities concerned about tourism revenue, a June CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain "one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world." Declared Dan Rather: "This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness...[But now] the U.K. has a crime problem....worse than ours." A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed." For example, where a series of homes was burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics. A brand-new report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime - for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes. Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count. American homicide data are based on arrests, but British data are based on final dispositions. Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. Another "common practice," according to one retired Scotland Yard senior officer, is "falsifying clear-up rates by gaining false confessions from criminals already in prison." (Britain has far fewer protections against abusive police interrogations than does the United States.) As a result, thousands of crimes in Great Britain have been "solved" by bribing or coercing prisoners to confess to crimes they never committed. Explaining away the disparity between crime reported by victims and the official figures became so difficult that, in April 1998, the British Home Office was forced to change its method of reporting crime, and a somewhat more accurate picture began to emerge. This past January, official street-crime rates in London were more than double the official rate from the year before. So what's a British politician to do when elections coincide with an out-of control crime wave? Calling for "reasonable" gun laws is no longer an option. Handguns have been confiscated, and long guns are very tightly restricted. So anti-gun demagoguery, while still popular, can't carry the whole load. Conversely, the government would not find it acceptable to allow its subjects to possess any type of gun (even a licensed, registered .22 rifle) for home protection. Defensive gun ownership is entirely illegal, and considered an insult to the government, since it implies that the government cannot keep the peace. Thus, in one recent notorious case, an elderly man who had been repeatedly burglarized, and had received no meaningful assistance from the police, shot a pair of career burglars who had broken into the man's home. The man was sentenced to life in prison. The British authorities warn the public incessantly about the dangers of following the American path on gun policy. But the Daily Telegraph (June 29, 2000) points out that "the main reason for a much lower burglary rate in America is householders' propensity to shoot intruders. They do so without fear of being dragged before courts and jailed for life." So what's the government going to do to make voters safer? One solution came from the Home Office in April 1999 in the form of "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders" - special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew, or lead to a person's eviction from his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential dangerousness. American anti-gun lobbyists have long argued that if America followed Britain's lead in severely restricting firearms possession and self-defense, then American crime rates would eventually match Britain's. The lobbyists have also argued that if guns were restricted in America, civil liberties in the U.S. would have the same degree of protection that they have in Britain. The lobbyists are absolutely right. Dr. Paul Gallant practices optometry in Wesley Hills, NY. Dr. Joanne Eisen practices dentistry in Old Bethpage, NY. Both are Research Associates at the Independence Institute, where Dave Kopel is Research Director. http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/Britain%20Fear.htm -------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Still more for you Alex.
_______________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crime up Down Under Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Jon E. Dougherty ? 2000 WorldNetDaily.com Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association. The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell. Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story: Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Assaults are up 8.6 percent; Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent; In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent; In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily; There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly. At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban. Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase. Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country. According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction." And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers. Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country. Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws. "In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them." Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element. Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense." Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'" Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality." Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus. Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham. "By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said. Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap. "Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history." Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws. "This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said. Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting. "The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns." In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs. Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime. "Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops." Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making." In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns. Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily, and author of the special report, "Election 2000: How the Military Vote Was Suppressed." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
Still more for you Alex.
Sorry man but as i've shown, for every right-winger saying arming everyone is good and the "statistics" prove this, i can link you to an article saying the exact opposite with other statistics. At the end of the day it's something we have to use common sense on. Common sense tells me that having guns in every house will lead to more gun deaths. All the evidence backs this up. The american death rate from guns is higher than the next 25 industrialised countries put together. What more is there to say? And as I mentioned earlier the police estimate only 2-4% of gun crimes in the UK actually involve real guns. The vast majority are harmless replicas. The outlaws have as difficult a time finding guns as everyone else. Only the very top gangsters are going to have the money and connections to buy real guns. I like it like that. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/08/02 11:40 PM)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
Common sense tells me that having guns in every house will lead to more gun deaths. All the evidence backs this up. All evidence? Not so: "There is no correlation between a country?s firearms ownership and its murder rate. Some countries with strict gun control have high murder rates, while others with liberal gun laws have low rates. It is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than does the U.S. Similarly, guns are strictly controlled in South Africa, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the U.S. By contrast, Israel and Switzerland have widespread access to firearms but only a fraction of the U.S. murder rate. [source: United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook]" But all of this is moot. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms. You may not like that, and you may point out that it's different in England or Australia or Canada, and you may argue that the 2nd amendment was unwise, but that doesn't alter the fact that ownership of firearms in the United States is guaranteed by its constitution. And that's what this thread is all about -- the 2nd amendment. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Apparently Alex, reading and comprehension are not your strong points.
-------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Here you go Alex.... a story on the rising gun crime rate in England from your countries very own BBC...
*A country in the crosshairs While Britain has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world, the recent spate of gun murders in London has highlighted a disturbing growth in armed crime. The shooting of a young woman in London by a mobile phone thief has again raised the issue of escalating gun crime in the UK. The attack follows a series of gun-related incidents in east London between Christmas and New Year, which included the case of two men who were killed by a single shot at a party. Between April and November 2001, the number of murders in the Metropolitan Police area committed with a firearm soared by almost 90% over the same period a year earlier. Armed street robberies rose, in the same period, from 435 to 667 in 2001 - an increase of 53% - while overall in the capital there were 45,255 street robberies and snatches last year, against 32,497 in 2000. Much of the blame has been pinned on the trade in stolen mobile phones and up to half of all muggings are now thought to be for mobiles. With both street robberies and gun crime on a sharp increase, there are fears that the two trends will overlap and young muggers will, more and more, graduate from knives to firearms. The worrying trend is not just in London. Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham have also witnessed increasing gun crime. Police believe young men are mostly responsible for the attacks, which are often fuelled by rows in the lucrative crack cocaine market. There are even suggestions the recent spurt is down to inner city police officers being siphoned off to protect terrorist targets in the wake of the 11 September attacks in America. Muggings in London have risen by more than 40% since early September. In the capital, so-called "black on black" attacks have accounted for much of the increase in gun murders. Of the 30 firearm killings between April and November 2001, 16 were classed as "black on black". Special operation In response to this trend, the Met set up the intelligence-based initiative Operation Trident in March 1998, specifically to tackle "black on black" gun crime. The operation was deemed necessary because of the reluctance of witnesses to come forward through fear of reprisals from the criminals involved. Yet only a few years ago the British government led a rigid crackdown on gun ownership. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed by a lone gunman, the government hoped to nip in the bud Britain's burgeoning firearms culture with an outright ban on handguns. Although all privately-owned handguns in Britain are now officially illegal, the tightened rules seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld. Millions of guns? No-one knows how many illegal firearms there are in Britain, although estimates range from between 200,000 to several million. Whatever the true figure, it is said to be growing daily. Young people with mobiles are becoming targets for street crime With so many deadly weapons on the streets of the UK's big cities, the next question seems to be whether Britain's famously unarmed police officers should carry guns as a matter of course. In recent years, the police have gradually become accustomed to firepower. Almost every force already has armed response vehicles, equipped and ready to attend the scene of a robbery or siege. But there appears to be unease at the prospect of rank and file officers carrying guns on the beat. Many fear that such a move would be counterproductive, inviting more criminals to arm themselves with higher grade weaponry. Almost 80% of PCs said they were not in favour of being routinely armed, according to a ballot carried out by the Police Federation in the mid 1990s. And in the event of a decision to arm all officers, only 43% said they would be prepared to carry guns on duty all the time. Yet the recent spate of attacks will only increase the feeling in some quarters that one day Britain's bobbies may have to cross this Rubicon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm That story came from one of the links I posted in an earlier response. Seems you failed either to read it or to understand it. And pinky is absolutely correct. It's a right whether you like it or not. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms
Actually it doesn't. That's what the first 3 pages of this thread addressed. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
From your own post:
Almost 80% of PCs said they were not in favour of being routinely armed, according to a ballot carried out by the Police Federation in the mid 1990s. If the cops don't want to be armed they're obviously not too worried about criminals having guns. Your argument collapses in a heap yet again whether you like it or not. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Actually, according to the founding fathers, the constitution, the supreme court, the justice department, the current and most past administrations, and the majority of constitutional experts it does. Just because a few idiots and several anti gun groups say it doesn't, does not make it so no matter how hard you might wish it to be.
Develop your learning and comprehension skills and you'll see it is so. Perhaps it would also be in your best interest to read the definition of the word "people." Quite frankly while I have enjoyed seeing you make an ass of yourself, I tire of seeing myself and others in this post show you up fot the ignorant buffoonish moron that you appear to be. I'm sure you have at least some redeeming value but it seems to escape 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
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Actually, according to the second amendment itself it doesn't. That talks specifically about militias. No matter how many lunatic fundamentalist gun sites you find that say it doesn't. The words don't lie.
We've been through all this tho. You'll believe what you want to believe. The truth doesn't matter to you. You've proven that beyond doubt. Indeed, that's the only thing you have proven. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
1stimer Religion=Rape Registered: 11/18/01 Posts: 1,280 Loc: Amerika |
| ||||||
|
I think the second amendment justifies it. If the government ever gets to oppressive what side do you think the pigs will be on. Yep you guessed it. big brothers. if we were eventually going to overthrow the government we would need to go throught the pigs. Just look at the irrational marijuana laws. These are unconstitutional and unjust yet the police are "just enforcing the law". I think the war on drugs constitutionaly gives us the right to shoot pigs if they are enforcing the war on drugs.
-------------------- ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey. There is such emotion in the distortion.
| |||||||
|
dee_N_ae \/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å† Registered: 08/16/02 Posts: 2,473 Loc: The Shadow of Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: wow 6 pages later and someone finally gave me an answer worth reading
| |||||||
|
mr freedom enthusiast Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 232 Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Hey; I gave you an answer worth reading. I simply encapsulated my assesment in the guise of under what condition that armed resistance might be used.
| |||||||
|
dee_N_ae \/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å† Registered: 08/16/02 Posts: 2,473 Loc: The Shadow of Ne |
| ||||||
|
i was exaggerating a bit, i just meant that 1stimer gave what i thought was the best answer, short and to the point. i must have skipped over your post in my attempt to find and end to the bickering about sources and facts and whatnot. but i went back and read it; you make a lot of good points there and have obviously done more research than i ever will, thanks for your insights. i'm going to go buy a gun soon
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Pinksharkmark wrote:
"The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms" Alex123 wrote: "Actually it doesn't. That's what the first 3 pages of this thread addressed." Yes, Alex it was addressed, quotes were provided from the founding fathers supporting the argument that the constitution does in fact guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You have provided no similar arguments from the people who founded this country which would support your position. We're still waiting... Edited by Evolving (09/13/02 01:15 AM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
quotes were provided from the founding fathers
Sorry, but as i said, I have no doubt some of the founding fathers were for arming everyone. That just isn't what the second amendment says. You can dig me up as many pro-gun qoutes from the founding fathers as you want. The only one that matters is the one they drafted. That refers to arming militias. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
I know I said I'd not respond to any more of your foolishness, sadly here I am again.
Are you really so incredibly numb as to be unable to acknowledge the fact that the definition of militia at the time was a force of every able bodied man? Just because the definition has evolved over the years doesn't change that at all. The definition of gay has changed over the years as well. Does that mean that the original definition no longer applies? Let's use your "logic" on the first ammendment shall we? 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. Did the press include radio and television at that time? Should they not be protected just because the definition of press has changed? But sadly, I expect there is no arguement that would persuade you as you appear to have been spoon-fed the liberal line. I suspect that somehow, should you be able to travel back in time you would get into an arguement with those who signed the Bill Of Rights as to what it really means. Limiting yourself to the period before 1800, can you find ANY quotes or proof to back up your position? I chose that year because the country was still new and should you find any quotes they would actually be relevant. Hopefully you are sterile. Whatever genes led you to your present state would be better off fading away. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
I know I said I'd not respond to any more of your foolishness, sadly here I am again.
If only you'd kept your word
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Limiting yourself to the period before 1800, can you find ANY quotes or proof to back up your position?
Yeah, here's one that the supreme court considers only applies to militias, not to individuals. Read it carefully. 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. 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.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 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. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
THE MYTH OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
What does the Second Amendment Mean? How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures. The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter. The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent The Second Amendment 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." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment ? the words referring to a "well-regulated militia." 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. The Second Amendment Today In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century. Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia ? the National Guard ? has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues. The Second Amendment in the Courts As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice ? in 1965 and 1990 ? the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard. In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove) . In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand. In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ?fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.. .[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see ? and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ?Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..." Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years. The Renegade Decision: U.S. v. Emerson On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precendents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis). Gun Control Laws and The Second Amendment Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/13/02 10:37 AM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
So you can write anything you want and not provide the source?
Just what I expected. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
When you have no argument, just say "Can i have a link"
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
In 1998, guns were used to murder 4 people in New Zealand, 19 in Japan, 54 in England and Wales, 57 in Australia, 151 in Canada, 373 in Germany and 11,798 in the United States.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 16 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
That's a good post (and I agree with everything in it) but I too would like to know the source (to congratulate the author).
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Alex, believe it or not.... I'm laughing with you, not at 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
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Alex, believe it or not.... I'm laughing with you, not at you.
I believe it luvdem. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: No Numbnuts, when I want to go read your source for myself, to see where it's from, to judge the info in context for myself, to perhaps learn something new.... that's when I ask for the source. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
when I want to go read your source for myself
To be honest I get most of my information from books rather than internet pages. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
LordMorham High Lord @Revel Registered: 09/08/02 Posts: 47 Loc: Revelstone Last seen: 22 years, 24 days |
| ||||||
|
"In 1998, guns were used to murder 4 people in New Zealand, 19 in Japan, 54 in England and Wales, 57 in Australia, 151 in Canada, 373 in Germany and 11,798 in the United States." This illustrates one of the problems with the statistics usually utilized by anti-self-defense zealots--they almost always choose the least informative or important stats. The writer hasn't done enough research to know that overall crime in Britain (for example) now exceeds the crime rate in the U.S. Instead, the writer operates on the peculiar premise that a rape, robbery, or assault committed with brute force or a knife is somehow less harmful to the victim. In fact, those crimes are more likely to lead to injury of the victim, because the victim is tempted to resist. Isn't it obvious that the total violent crime rate is more relevant to the average person than the percentage of violent crimes committed with any particular tool? Have you ever heard anyone say, "Thank God the criminal who raped and murdered my daughter only used a knife. It would have been tragic if they had used a gun"? On the other hand, we have heard many, many people say, "If only she had a gun available, she would have been able to save herself and her children." When you look at total violent crime, the U.S. is in the middle of the pack, and some of the countries that heavily restrict firearms ownership, such as Britain, have some of the highest violent crime rates. Other countries such as Switzerland, with universal availability of firearms, are quite safe. See the Univ. of Leiden, Netherlands http://rulj287.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/ for an international crime rate comparison study. -------------------- "Stone and Sea" - Saltheart
| |||||||
|
LordMorham High Lord @Revel Registered: 09/08/02 Posts: 47 Loc: Revelstone Last seen: 22 years, 24 days |
| ||||||
|
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of firearm deaths among American children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. " It depends what the meaning of "combined" is... In a statement like this, the word "combined" is meant to suggest to you that the rates from the other 25 countries are ADDED together, and that, oh my GOD, you'd still have to multiply this by 12 to come up to the U.S. rate. In other words, if all the other 25 countries each had an identical rate of .1 per 100,000, the "combined" rate of the other countries would be 2.5 per 100,000. This is the common interpretation of the word "combined." However, this is NOT the way the data from the other countries is "combined" in this report. The data is "combined" by taking a population-weighted average One glance at the chart of firearms related deaths shows that the rate data from other countries was not added together for comparison to the U.S. rate, as the common meaning of the word "combined" suggests. This bar chart shows the firearms death rates for all 26 countries in the study. It is obvious that if one adds the rates of all the other countries (added the lengths of bars), the rates of all the other countries added together would be much greater than the U.S. rate, without multiplying the "other countries" rate by anything, let alone a factor of 12. "Combined" in this report means the data from the other countries was put in one big pot - the number of deaths from the other 25 countries in the study was all added together and divided by the populations of the 25 other countries all added together. This produces a population-weighted average. Here's the vague way the report puts it - "Rates for the United States were compared with rates based on pooled data for the other 25 countries." The report also contains the sentence "The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged <15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined." This contorted sentence takes the lie two-thirds of the way there. It's meant to provide the basis for a sound bite that more "clearly" implies that it's an adding of rates, not a type of averaging that is being used - while providing just enough ambiguity to avoid appearing like a blatant distortion to the scientifically trained readers of the study. Now one may say that, even with this distortion corrected, things still look kind of bad for the U.S. - a 12 times higher juvenile firearms related death rate than a population-weighted average of the next 25 industrialized countries. But when you dig a little deeper, you see that there is still a barrel full of distortions in THIS figure. High murder rate countries excluded The report claims to have used an unbiased method of choosing countries to include in the study. However the first thing one notices is that all the countries in the world with a murder rate higher than the U.S. (with the exceptions of Northern Ireland and Taiwan) have somehow been excluded from the study. For example, South Africa (about an 11 times higher murder rate than the U.S.), Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, and the Philippines - all somehow didn't make the cut of countries to be included in the study. The criteria for inclusion, in the words of the study, is "all countries classified in the high-income group with populations > 1 million ... that provided complete data". None of the countries listed above had an excuse for being excluded on population or GNP grounds - all have populations > 1 million, and all have GNPs higher than several other countries included in the study. I guess the data from these high murder rate countries wasn't "complete" enough. -------------------- "Stone and Sea" - Saltheart
| |||||||
|
LordMorham High Lord @Revel Registered: 09/08/02 Posts: 47 Loc: Revelstone Last seen: 22 years, 24 days |
| ||||||
|
oh yeah
The original CDC report is at ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4605.pdf let's see the meaning of "MILITIA" the meaning of "IS" the meaning of "THE PEOPLE" <- interesting that this list makes a coherent statement.. isn't it? the meaning of "COMBINED" why is it that in order to assemble any facts that support your ludicrous claims you liberals allways need to change the meaning of common words? -------------------- "Stone and Sea" - Saltheart Edited by LordMorham (09/16/02 11:10 AM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Alex, you can't possibly be as numb as you appear. I can only assume your are being deliberately obtuse.
It doesn't matter if it's a book, a news program, a documentary, or a web page. Post the source to your (in my opinion) rediculous claims and foolish beliefs or be prepared to be asked each and every time. It's commom courtesy. If you have no source, at least state when it's your opinion. -------------------- 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
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 20 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
The main problem I have with the right to bear arms is that so many luvdemshrooms types are the most outspoken proponents of it.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
luvdem, try and improve the intelligence of your posts instead of saying "Can you show me a link". That way I might consider taking you seriously. I'm afraid just saying "Give me a link" instead of offering any evidence whatsoever (apart from linking us to NRA sites) makes me consider you a waste of time.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: Fortunately for you, many people still believe in their rights. -------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: Now that is funny. If your so confident in your sources, and in what you believe, back it up. I do so. Many others do so. What makes you feel that your "knowledge" is so vast and superior to others? And to say all my links go to NRA sites is a stupid as just about anything else you've said in these forums. But lets asume what you say is true. At least I post my links and sources rather than just pulling them out of my ass. Or is it that you realize you have no ground to stand on? -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
|
At least I post my links and sources rather than just pulling them out of my ass.
Unfortunately you don't. And I'm afraid doing a google search for 2 minutes until you find an article you agree with does not constitute research. Intelligence is reading from many sources and making your own interpretation, not simply saying "This page on the internet says this so it must be true". That is the way of the moron. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
You are a funny little boy. If you're an example of the level of education in your country, I feel bad for all of you.
I have no doubt the "way of the moron" is the only way you know. -------------------- 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
| |||||||
|
1stimer Religion=Rape Registered: 11/18/01 Posts: 1,280 Loc: Amerika |
| ||||||
|
Not taking sides but "the way of the moron" is fuckin funny.
I consider myself a militia. -------------------- ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey. There is such emotion in the distortion.
| |||||||
|
francisco Richman Sporeman Registered: 01/15/02 Posts: 133 Loc: USA Last seen: 6 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex,Alex,Alex can you not read "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."The people,the people,the people.If you think the people means the militia,who the hell are the people enumerated in the rest of the Bill Of Rights.Did you get a zero in reading comprehension?Obviously you don't have a copy of the Constitution.PM me and i'll be glad to send you an electronic version;However,You'll have to get your own 3 RD grader to explain it to you.The words are in front of you."...THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS..."
-------------------- Well...Maybe just a little.
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
What does the 2nd Amendment mean? |  SoopaX |
2,348 | 16 | 12/11/04 03:09 PM by SoopaX |
|
|
for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment (  1 2 3 all ) |
 Anonymous |
7,478 | 58 | 01/23/04 04:34 PM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
Blind allegiance to the 2nd Amendment by Bush ( 1 2 all ) |
1stimer |
3,268 | 20 | 09/09/04 07:35 PM by unbeliever |
|
|
2nd Amendment Quote |  MagicalMystery |
380 | 0 | 10/19/05 02:28 PM by MagicalMystery |
|
|
The 2nd Amendment | Anonymous |
664 | 2 | 08/02/03 10:31 PM by Anonymous |
|
|
Confiscation of registered firearms has begun |  Ellis Dee |
1,558 | 13 | 09/06/01 12:14 AM by MrKurtz |
|
|
Which amendment to the bill of rights is your favorite? ( 1 2 all ) |
 Senor_Doobie |
2,520 | 34 | 01/30/03 10:52 AM by Sinistar |
|
|
Police shoot demonstrators |  mm. |
2,716 | 15 | 10/12/18 06:26 PM by christopera |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 14,002 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||