Supreme Court ruled today on the D.C. gun ban

[InHouston]

The Supreme Court ruled today that the D.C. gun ban violates the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms. Gun control advocates often posit the argument that it only applies to a "well regulated militia". The court ruled that this operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individuals right to keep and bear arms as well for personal self-defense.

An excerpt from the court today: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Currently in D.C., handgun ownership is not permitted, and rifles in the home must be kept disassembled and with trigger locks that render the gun non-functional.

Now the occupational hazards for would be burglars will be death, or if they're lucky and arrested ... jail.

:claps

[SinthiaTV]

I'm a girly boy who has a concealed-carry permit, so I'm getting a real kick out of this ruling...

[scroller]

It does actually say "well regulated militia" in the amendment, after all. Hard to see how they could miss that.

[InHouston]

It does actually say "well regulated militia" in the amendment, after all. Hard to see how they could miss that.

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

[InHouston]

It does actually say "well regulated militia" in the amendment, after all. Hard to see how they could miss that.

It also states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". Doesn't say those people have to be in the aformentioned militia.

The casae was really settle when DC's lawyer made his opening comments. The judges pretty much told him his statesments made a case of the militia and people being seperate. lol...

I'd love to see how crime rates change in DC when the laws are actually dropped.

Technically the ban is dropped. The D.C. police chief went before the media today. He stated that he formally submitted to the department for the development of procedures to be implemented for the immediate registration of handguns.

[scroller]

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

Look how you again missed the "well-regulated" part.

[InHouston]

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

Look how you again missed the "well-regulated" part.

And the rights of the people to bear arms will not be infringed upon. The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd amendment refers to well-regulated militias and the people. Not just militias. They didn't miss that. That has been debated in the courts for decades now. The Supreme Justices studied the history of decades upon decades of court cases and the works of scholars both pre and post 2nd amendment to determine this.

[iloveshemales77]

Isn't it about time we got rid of the 2nd amendment. I mean this IS 2008, not 1776, if I'm not mistaken...

uh oh...I'm gonna be ducking all those NRA bullets coming my way any minute now...

[hugochavez]

Great. Expect more school shootings and workplace shootings.

[iloveshemales77]

Great. Expect more school shootings and workplace shootings.

you're right on the mark dude!

[Trogdor]

Mark another for the bill fo rights!

You wanna stop school shootings, give the school staff weapons. A teacher or principle should BLAST whomever wants to start another columbine.

time for the media to show guns saving lives from crackpots, rather than just the other way for a change. :P

[iloveshemales77]

ehhhmm...I do hope you are joking Trogdor

[BrendaQG]

{sarcasm}Praise be to Allah! Now me and the members of my mosque gun club can go buy RPG's and AK's like our brothers in Afganistan! {/srcasm}

Seriously the right to keep and bear arms will always be infringed up to a point. I personally feel that the framers of the constitution wanted the populace to at least theoretically be able to defend itself from a govt. gone mad.... I really do wonder what this means for the other gun laws in the nation like the ban on firearms here in Chicago.

[cockgobbler]

To all of my responsible, law abiding firearms owning American friends, I would encourage you to visit a site called torontothebad.com

Toronto Mayor David Miller is trying to get the Canadian government to institute a national handgun ban in Canada because of some shootings in Toronto. He ingores the FACTS that in every jurisdiction where a hangun ban has been put into place, violent crime involving handguns has actually increased: The U.K., Jamaica, Australia, Washington D.C., Chicago, ect. Two young men were recently shot to death in their SUV waiting for a friend to come out to give them something. Despite the fact Toronto Police have already said the gun used to kill these men was ILLEGALY smuggled into Canada, he continues to say the gun was stolen from a "so called" legal owner in Canada.

He will only come after legal firearms owners, saying we are responsible for the fireams issues in the city. He claims 40% of firearms recovered by Toronto Police were stolen from Canadian owners, even though Toronto Police own numbers place the figure closer to 5%.

Here's why the site is important to you: He blames America, and is actively trying to stick his nose in American politics to get the USA to change its firearms laws.

Visit torontothebad.com and read the crap Mayor Miller, and in particular a councillor named Adam Vaugh have to say about our American friends.

[iloveshemales77]

[quote="BrendaQG
I personally feel that the framers of the constitution wanted the populace to at least theoretically be able to defend itself from a govt. gone mad.... [/quote]

which is exactly what they intended! But that was a while ago.

[baracutay00]

Truth is that the majority of people don't know crap About this second amendment shit...You have to look at the historical background on the law in question. It does say a well "regulated militia" and also says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". remember that at the time of this thing the US was a young country and it was on its way of a constitution.Well, on of the things it lacks was 1.Unity or Uniformity and 2. An Army to defend itself from aggression. so the people that drafted the constitution decided that the people should have the right to bear arms....the problem is that the masculinity of a lot of men in this country relies on their guns and not on their balls. And i'm not against the NEED to bear arms i'm against how easy it is for people here to have a gun in some countries is very expensive and there is a psychological profile on the permit...of course these counties are far more advanced than the us...PEOPLE HERE DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS THEY HAVE A NEED TO BEAR ARMS

[El Nino]

Isn't it about time we got rid of the 2nd amendment. I mean this IS 2008, not 1776, if I'm not mistaken...

uh oh...I'm gonna be ducking all those NRA bullets coming my way any minute now...

Dude, are you high on crack or something?

[El Nino]

Get Educated

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."


"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson

[justatransgirl]

.....

[El Nino]

Virtually all those school shootings happen in "Gun Free" Zones. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

[iloveshemales77]

Isn't it about time we got rid of the 2nd amendment. I mean this IS 2008, not 1776, if I'm not mistaken...

uh oh...I'm gonna be ducking all those NRA bullets coming my way any minute now...

Dude, are you high on crack or something?

Nope, totally sober and serious!

[trish]

If you want teachers to carry concealed firearms, then you never had the idiots I had for teachers.

Even though the right of the “people” (which needn’t, until today, be read as individuals) to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment, very little is said in today’s decision about regulation. The first amendment has always been read as giving individuals as well as the press the right to speech. Yet, being an in force constitutional amendment has not precluded speech from regulation. There are venues where you can’t say George Carlin’s seven words without paying an exorbitant fine. You can be sued for defamation. You can be fined for false advertising. It has yet to be worked out what sort of regulations are justified by this latest supreme court deconstruction of a constitutional amendment that had been well understood for seventy years.

[iloveshemales77]

Trust trish to supply the most thoughtful, informed and erudite comment on this matter.

[El Nino]

awww jeez...

[iloveshemales77]

No, I'm not sucking up to her. I just happen to think that trish, along with Peggy Gee, is one of the most intelligent and informed posters in this forum. Just my humble opinion which, according to the first amendment, I am entitled to utter.

[phosepete]

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

Look how you again missed the "well-regulated" part.

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".

Scalia explains clearly that the prefatory clause(aka "well regulated militia") is not a limitation, but rather an explanation of the second, operative clause (aka "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed")


Scalia's majority opinion:


The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re-
phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”...... other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose...... Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.”...... But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

[Tomfurbs]

Yeah, but Antonin Scalia is a right-wing torture-crazy death-penalty-loving gay-bashing reactionary twat.

[trish]

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".


“Arms” doesn’t mean what you think it means either. The founding fathers thought arms meant flintlocks and knives. The initial intention of the founding fathers is not at issue. Their intentions can go no further than their own understanding of what an arm is or what a militia is or what a drug gang is. Every court interprets the constitution in its own unique way. Even near contemporary understandings are sometimes deemed irrelevant. This was the case today when the current court effectively said, “let precedents be damned.” Today we find out that not only is it important what’s written in the constitution, but equally important is who gets to interpret what’s written. The NRA might rail against activist courts, but today they are not so secretly reveling in the activism of the current court.

[phosepete]

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".


“Arms” doesn’t mean what you think it means either. The founding fathers thought arms meant flintlocks and knives. The initial intention of the founding fathers is not at issue. Their intentions can go no further than their own understanding of what an arm is or what a militia is or what a drug gang is. Every court interprets the constitution in its own unique way. Even near contemporary understandings are sometimes deemed irrelevant. This was the case today when the current court effectively said, “let precedents be damned.” Today we find out that not only is it important what’s written in the constitution, but equally important is who gets to interpret what’s written. The NRA might rail against activist courts, but today they are not so secretly reveling in the activism of the current court.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Read the majority opinion, it shoots down your entire argument. Arms means EXACTLY what I think it means.

You seriously need to read the Federalist papers, specifically #46, where the reason for, and purpose of, 2nd amendment was discussed in detail.
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter-
pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” .... Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.”....Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”.....Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo-
us, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in-
terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
.... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search..... the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

[Tomfurbs]

'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '


So, like, bazookas?

[phosepete]

'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '


So, like, bazookas?

you can all ready own machine guns and other destructive devices like howitzers and anti-tank cannons in the US, you just need to pay a $200 tax to the ATF.

civilian owned 90mm anti tank gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IeEa8tqUkE&feature=related

20 mm hispano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9E8_ZuESQ&feature=related

minigun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmftWnCLnlQ

knob creek, world's largest civilian owned machine gun shoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU


couple more cool ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o4rY9nRz0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd4ghW8sL30&feature=related


America, FUCK YEAH

[trish]

phosepete,

Right, right, right. Read the minority opinion.

The Federalists were a political party. Why should we take the political opinions of the Federalists as a substitute for the actual constitution? Their writings were just an attempt to put their own spin on the laws of the land. You seriously need to put down those Federalist papers.

[Xenicity]

Hooray for the Supremes and their decision on gun control. Oh yes, Iloveshemales77 you will not have to duck bullets from the NRA. The NRA represents responsible gun owners. It was only the responsible people that were affected by gun control laws. The criminal element didn't pay that much attention to gun control laws or laws against robbing banks or rape etc.

Xenicity

[phosepete]

phosepete,

Right, right, right. Read the minority opinion.

The Federalists were a political party. Why should we take the political opinions of the Federalists as a substitute for the actual constitution? Their writings were just an attempt to put their own spin on the laws of the land. You seriously need to put down those Federalist papers.

wrong again. The Federalist papers(written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison) were written before the Federalist party even existed, and they were written to explain and advocate the ratification of the Constitution to the country. The Federalist papers are not "opinions", They're written documents by several of the Founding Fathers themselves that help illuminate exactly what the Constitution means and what the Founders intended. The papers were written and published before the Constitution was even ratified, so they were hardly an attempt to " put their own spin on the laws of the land", as the constitution wasn't even the law of the land at the time!

You my dear, seriously need to pick up and read the Federalist Papers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

[trish]

The Federalist papers ... were written before the Federalist party even existed, and they were written to explain and advocate the ratification of the Constitution to the country.

touche'

[trish]

It is not surprising the court which took it upon themselves to be the first to declare the presidency, has ignored two hundred years of precedent and upset the traditional understanding of the second amendment. The court could’ve easily found against the DC law without overturning the second amendment. It’s clear the court went out of its way to use this case to deconstruct the constitution. It’s a clear case of activism.

Some may find it surprising that even though I think the court deliberately miss-stepped in its decision today, I also think the DC law overstepped its rational bounds as well. I personally see nothing wrong with individual people owning guns and keeping them in their houses, whether you live in Washington D.C. or anywhere else in the U.S.

Gun ownership should come with responsibilities and it is the duty of government to insure that people live up those responsibilities. I don’t think we can do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But we can do a lot to keep them out of the hands of the stupid; i.e. we should make sure that people who buy guns are educated in their safe use. Before you can drive you have to prove you’re competent to drive. The same should be true of using firearms. The current ruling of the Supreme Court does not say anything about this sort of regulation. All that has yet to be worked out.

[dbev]

Frankly: what can you expect from a bunch of ultra-conservative judges nominated by GW Bush?

The NRA gratefully thanks.

[marissaazts]

tis a great day and the 4 who voted against need kicked in the privates

as a life nra member i am quite happy, but i'd still never step foot in DC

[cockgobbler]

To all of my responsible, law abiding firearms owning American friends, I would encourage you to visit a site called torontothebad.com

Toronto Mayor David Miller is trying to get the Canadian government to institute a national handgun ban in Canada because of some shootings in Toronto. He ingores the FACTS that in every jurisdiction where a hangun ban has been put into place, violent crime involving handguns has actually increased: The U.K., Jamaica, Australia, Washington D.C., Chicago, ect. Two young men were recently shot to death in their SUV waiting for a friend to come out to give them something. Despite the fact Toronto Police have already said the gun used to kill these men was ILLEGALY smuggled into Canada, he continues to say the gun was stolen from a "so called" legal owner in Canada.

He will only come after legal firearms owners, saying we are responsible for the fireams issues in the city. He claims 40% of firearms recovered by Toronto Police were stolen from Canadian owners, even though Toronto Police own numbers place the figure closer to 5%.

Here's why the site is important to you: He blames America, and is actively trying to stick his nose in American politics to get the USA to change its firearms laws.

Visit torontothebad.com and read the crap Mayor Miller, and in particular a councillor named Adam Vaugh have to say about our American friends.


It's funny you bring up the gun ban in the UK. I do that guns violence has gone down, however violent crimes involving knives have shot through the roof. Just goes to show you. People will find a way to hurt one another regardless of the law.

No, no, no. In the U.K., while it is true handgun related DEATHS have decreased since the ban, all incidents of handgun related CRIME - shootings, robbery's, home invasions, rape ect have actually INCREASED approximately 300%.

All that tells me is surgeons in the U.K. are getting more skilled at treating gunshot wounds.

In Jamaica, in 2006 according to Amnesty International, there was over 1600 murders. More than 1300 of them were committed by someone using a handgun.

Australia's gun ban has been such a failure, the new Prime Minister there is looking at repealing portions of their gun control legislation.

Look at the numbers provided by the main gun control lobby in the USA. I can't remember the exact name, something like the Brady Group (founded by President Regan's press secretary(?) who was left paralized in the assissination attempt on Regan). There own numbers show the states with the toughest gun control legislation, such as California, also have grime and homicide rates much higher than the national average.

Gun control is the only thing that has been a complete and total failure, yet people still demand more of it.

[hondarobot]

I haven't read this entire thread, it's an old topic. Here's my take on it:

If I was put in a situation where I needed to defend myself or someone else, I would like to have the option of shooting the bad person, with a gun. I have never owned a gun, but I support the second amendment.

I own a sword, but that really doesn't do much good in most situations. I suppose I could jab people with it, but I would probably just get shot by a gun.

:)

[Paladin]

It does actually say "well regulated militia" in the amendment, after all. Hard to see how they could miss that.

Read the 10 ammendment

In addition, the term "well regulated" back then did NOT mean 1000s of pages of laws and regulations but rather meant trained and ready. And Militias then meant every able bodied adult male (16&up), NOT the national gurad, etc which only came into being in the 20th century.

It was a good and long needed ruling, by the same court, interestingly enough that the pres bashed recently for the gitmo ruling :P

[Paladin]

[quote="BrendaQG
I personally feel that the framers of the constitution wanted the populace to at least theoretically be able to defend itself from a govt. gone mad....

which is exactly what they intended! But that was a while ago.[/quote]

And you don't think that this modern government is MORE dangerous to peoples rights now???

[Paladin]

Isn't it about time we got rid of the 2nd amendment. I mean this IS 2008, not 1776, if I'm not mistaken...

uh oh...I'm gonna be ducking all those NRA bullets coming my way any minute now...

Dude, are you high on crack or something?

Goot reference, you knoe the German government in the 20 specifically disarmed the civilian population, the result was uncle adolf.

Also after an australian gun ban went into effect, home invasions went through the roof there!

[Paladin]

Get Educated

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."


"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson

Great minds think alike

[Paladin]

If you want teachers to carry concealed firearms, then you never had the idiots I had for teachers.

Even though the right of the “people” (which needn’t, until today, be read as individuals) to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment, very little is said in today’s decision about regulation. The first amendment has always been read as giving individuals as well as the press the right to speech. Yet, being an in force constitutional amendment has not precluded speech from regulation. There are venues where you can’t say George Carlin’s seven words without paying an exorbitant fine. You can be sued for defamation. You can be fined for false advertising. It has yet to be worked out what sort of regulations are justified by this latest supreme court deconstruction of a constitutional amendment that had been well understood for seventy years.

what are you smoking? "The People" ALWAYS refers to individuals. As I stated earlier, read the 10th ammendment.

[Paladin]

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".


“Arms” doesn’t mean what you think it means either. The founding fathers thought arms meant flintlocks and knives. The initial intention of the founding fathers is not at issue. Their intentions can go no further than their own understanding of what an arm is or what a militia is or what a drug gang is. Every court interprets the constitution in its own unique way. Even near contemporary understandings are sometimes deemed irrelevant. This was the case today when the current court effectively said, “let precedents be damned.” Today we find out that not only is it important what’s written in the constitution, but equally important is who gets to interpret what’s written. The NRA might rail against activist courts, but today they are not so secretly reveling in the activism of the current court.

Again your uninformed nature shine through.

The American colonials were actually MUCH BETTER armed than the British Army of the time. (not including cannon of course which is outside the scpoe of this subject)

[Paladin]

Frankly: what can you expect from a bunch of ultra-conservative judges nominated by GW Bush?

The NRA gratefully thanks.

Don't forget that this is the SAME court the republicans bashed all last week on their gitmo / detainee ruling.....

[GroobySteven]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

[justatransgirl]

.....

[Oli]

No, no, no. In the U.K., while it is true handgun related DEATHS have decreased since the ban, all incidents of handgun related CRIME - shootings, robbery's, home invasions, rape ect have actually INCREASED approximately 300%.

This statement is not born out by the statistics.
Criminal offenses with a firearm-1996/97-13,874
Criminal offenses with a firearm-2005/06-21,521, of which 3,275 involved imitation firearms and 10,437 involved air weapons.
By my math 21,521-13,712=7809, a decrease of 56%.

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/



In Jamaica, in 2006 according to Amnesty International, there was over 1600 murders. More than 1300 of them were committed by someone using a handgun.

That's not what Amnesty said.
Homicide rates in Jamaica remained high, although numbers decreased in 2006. A total of 1,355 murders were committed during the year according to official figures, a decrease since 2005 of more than 20 per cent.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/caribbean/jamaica#report

People can make statistics back up almost any point of view, but only if the data is factual to begin with.

[kimjongil]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...


On behalf of my fellow Americans...FUCK YOU !

[GroobySteven]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...


On behalf of my fellow Americans...FUCK YOU !

Particularly their sense of humour and their inability to criticize themselves - as it would be .... unpatriotic. :roll:

Thank fully more and more Americans I know, are able to get past that and have a laugh at the ridiculousness of their situation, instead of crying.

[hondarobot]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

But you still take the money.

:lol:

[GroobySteven]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

But you still take the money.

:lol:

Not America's money. Individuals pay a company for a service. The American people's money, is very sadly, being taken by their own country against their will.

[hondarobot]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

But you still take the money.

:lol:

Not America's money. Individuals pay a company for a service. The American people's money, is very sadly, being taken by their own country against their will.

Whatever. Put me on your payroll so I can get rich and impress Vicki Richter. That's all I'm really concerned about.

:wink:

[arepa01]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

But you still take the money.

:lol:

Many porn companies, in fact, bring money from world-wide consumers into America if they use CCBill. Grooby should use a European-based company. Dollar is going shit now. Nobody in America seems to appreciate the money brought in by porn.

[GroobySteven]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

But you still take the money.

:lol:

Not America's money. Individuals pay a company for a service. The American people's money, is very sadly, being taken by their own country against their will.

Whatever. Put me on your payroll so I can get rich and impress Vicki Richter. That's all I'm really concerned about.

:wink:

Money doesn't impress her, mate! Only humour and class ....

[GroobySteven]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

But you still take the money.

:lol:

Many porn companies, in fact, bring money from world-wide consumers into America if they use CCBill. Grooby should use a European-based company. Dollar is going shit now. Nobody in America seems to appreciate the money brought in by porn.

Too late it's all in dollars :-(

It's hurt our Brazilian and Asian side of the business as we have to pay out more (watch out for many sites going down - some have already) but within the USA as we pay photographers/models in US it doesn't affect us so much. Some of our employees in Europe have seen their salaries (dollar based) cut by 30% ish.

If you've got money in USD you'd better sit tight and wait for it to get better ... Obama!

[hondarobot]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

But you still take the money.

:lol:

Not America's money. Individuals pay a company for a service. The American people's money, is very sadly, being taken by their own country against their will.

Whatever. Put me on your payroll so I can get rich and impress Vicki Richter. That's all I'm really concerned about.

:wink:

Money doesn't impress her, mate! Only humour and class ....

I'll keep working on that.

:?

[cockgobbler]

No, no, no. In the U.K., while it is true handgun related DEATHS have decreased since the ban, all incidents of handgun related CRIME - shootings, robbery's, home invasions, rape ect have actually INCREASED approximately 300%.

This statement is not born out by the statistics.
Criminal offenses with a firearm-1996/97-13,874
Criminal offenses with a firearm-2005/06-21,521, of which 3,275 involved imitation firearms and 10,437 involved air weapons.
By my math 21,521-13,712=7809, a decrease of 56%.

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/




In Jamaica, in 2006 according to Amnesty International, there was over 1600 murders. More than 1300 of them were committed by someone using a handgun.

That's not what Amnesty said.
Homicide rates in Jamaica remained high, although numbers decreased in 2006. A total of 1,355 murders were committed during the year according to official figures, a decrease since 2005 of more than 20 per cent.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/caribbean/jamaica#report

People can make statistics back up almost any point of view, but only if the data is factual to begin with.

First off you are only comparing the stats from 96/97 and 06/07. What about all those years in between? The ban took affect in 1997. Look here and pay note to the charts and graphs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Types of firearms used in crime 2006/07 - handgun 43%. My point was handgun bans do not work. Britian banned them, yet they are still used in 43% of crime involving firearms.

Also look here:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece

In terms of Jamaica, I mis-typed. It should have been 2005, not 2006. In 2005, 1627 (some articles have it as high as 1660) murders were committed in Jamaica, although I cannot find the exact article that said over 1300 were by guns. I also mis-spoke. Jamaica has a TOTAL firearms ban, not just a ban on handguns. However there is an article here:
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/editorial/html/20051228T200000-0500_95509_OBS_CANADA__JAMAICA_AND_AMERICAN_GUNS.a sp
which just says most involved a firearm.

P.S. - I don't know about the U.K., but in Canada if you use a replica firearm (which are banned) or an air gun to commit a crime, you will be charged as if you used a real firearm. I would assume the U.K. is the same since THEY INCLUDED replica and pellet guns as FIREARMS in their stats.

[phosepete]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ... Hmm, after cleaning up europe's mess not once but twice in the last century, most Americans have little patience for crybaby bullshit/snobbery from euro-peons.

hint: there's a reason it's called the "old world"; because it's reached a point of economic, political, and cultural obsolescence.

230 years ago we were just europe's rejects and cast-offs; today the 27 countries of the EU combined can just barely match our GDP. 51% of the world defense spending is ours, and after kicking the asses of Japan, Germany, and forcing the USSR into bankruptcy we're in little mood to listen to the ungrateful mewling from the very people whose asses we saved. I strongly suspect that a lot of the arrogance and snobbery of europeons comes from comes from a rather large inferiority complex; they've been left in the dust by a group of people they rejected and kicked out, and that's got to really hurt the ole' cultural pride thingy.

To paraphrase something Jack Nicholson said in one of his roles, we don't care to listen to the complaints of a man who lives in the shadow of the protection we provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it. We're better than you in every way, we know it, and deep down inside in places that you don't talk about at parties you know it too.

[trish]

Paladin writes:
what are you smoking? "The People" ALWAYS refers to individuals. As I stated earlier, read the 10th ammendment.

Except when it doesn’t. The national parks belong to the people, but individuals can only visit them. The nation’s resources belong to the people, but only corporations reap them. The government is of the people, but only collectively, unless your personal friends with Dick Cheney. In the second amendment, “the people” refers to those who would serve in a State Militia…not to women…nor girls…nor to two slaves who as a sum were equal to more than one citizen. The second amendment only exists because some States were fearful that the Federal government would disband the State militias and replace them with a Federal army.

[GroobySteven]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ... Hmm, after cleaning up europe's mess not once but twice in the last century, most Americans have little patience for crybaby bullshit/snobbery from euro-peons.

hint: there's a reason it's called the "old world"; because it's reached a point of economic, political, and cultural obsolescence.

230 years ago we were just europe's rejects and cast-offs; today the 27 countries of the EU combined can just barely match our GDP. 51% of the world defense spending is ours, and after kicking the asses of Japan, Germany, and forcing the USSR into bankruptcy we're in little mood to listen to the ungrateful mewling from the very people whose asses we saved. I strongly suspect that a lot of the arrogance and snobbery of europeons comes from comes from a rather large inferiority complex; they've been left in the dust by a group of people they rejected and kicked out, and that's got to really hurt the ole' cultural pride thingy.

To paraphrase something Jack Nicholson said in one of his roles, we don't care to listen to the complaints of a man who lives in the shadow of the protection we provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it. We're better than you in every way, we know it, and deep down inside in places that you don't talk about at parties you know it too.


... and you have illustrated my points better than I ever could.

Thanks for the amusement, I'll be sure to send this one around!

[El Nino]

A gun in your hand is better than a cop on the phone. You people can't actually think that the government can protect you and make you safe, can you? Your personal safety is best guaranteed by your own hand. I know when some thug breaks into my house, he will be dealt with promptly and properly. Its my life dammit. And for any of you that try to twist and spin the 2nd amendment around to fit you liberal, nanny state, pipe dreams, it ain't gonna work. It is clearly defined and shall not be infringed. It is one of the most important rights in any free sate.

Seanchai, you have a problem with our 2nd amendment? You think you can rely on something or somebody else to protect you? Ha, that's quite comical.
Listen Up Bro:

The Second Amendment to our Constitution 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.”

This Amendment does not “grant” any rights. It guarantees a “right of the people” that already exists. The “well-regulated Militia” of which it speaks does not mean the federally armed and sponsored National Guard, but rather indigenous people skilled in both the use of firearms as well as teamwork in the field.

Such a militia was necessary not for the security of any old willy-nilly state, but of a “free state.” Militias played a vital part in securing this nation's independence. The Founders understood that an armed populace was an essential counterforce against tyranny.

***The history of the last century bears witness to this. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership posts a wonderful illustration of the relationship between gun control and genocide. Various degrees of gun control – licensing, confiscation, bans on private ownership, bans on concealed carry, requiring demonstration of a “need” to own a firearm – led to genocide in Armenia, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Red China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and Rwanda.

The world’s worst sickos can be found in government. The sicker they are, the more power they accumulate. Show me a tyrant – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Castro – who is not certifiably insane. The ultimate aim of gun control is to totally disarm the citizenry and leave them defenseless against psychopaths who pull the strings and levers of power.

If you believe “we should take away all the guns,” ask yourself what you mean by “we” as well as how such a “take away” shall be implemented.

If you believe “we should take away all the guns,” you had better think twice. And three or four or five times if necessary.

I did not arrive at all my current beliefs overnight, so I do not expect you to, either. You do not have to like any of this. Just don’t let your emotions interfere with your quest for truth.

[El Nino]

FACT!

Nazi Germany's style of "gun control" removed the last barrier to the genocide of 13 million people--over 6 million were Jewish--just 50 years ago. It was called "The Final Solution". Disarming citizens was key in the success of this misguided political scheme.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." (Adolf Hitler)

America has idolized her children. Our enemies know this fact well. Liberties are incrementally eliminated by making our children victims, and demonizing our freedoms (especially the 2nd Amendment) as the cause. What a brilliant strategy--America voluntarily rejects her blood-bought freedoms to secure a false peace and safety. Historians will remember this generation as "the one who gave it all away."



The point is clear and very simple, don't fuck with the Bill of Rights, and/or support politicians that do. The proof is in the pudding, bitches.

[phosepete]

Paladin writes:
what are you smoking? "The People" ALWAYS refers to individuals. As I stated earlier, read the 10th ammendment.

Except when it doesn’t. The national parks belong to the people, but individuals can only visit them. The nation’s resources belong to the people, but only corporations reap them. The government is of the people, but only collectively, unless your personal friends with Dick Cheney. In the second amendment, “the people” refers to those who would serve in a State Militia…not to women…nor girls…nor to two slaves who as a sum were equal to more than one citizen. The second amendment only exists because some States were fearful that the Federal government would disband the State militias and replace them with a Federal army.

to be specific, when used in the context of rights, "people" always refers to individual; "people" only has a collective use when referring to the exercise or reservation of powers.


a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the peo-
ple.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.... Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people”
in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble
(“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the peo-
ple” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth
Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the
people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”
acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or
reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the
Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer
to anything other than an individual right

[phosepete]

... and you have illustrated my points better than I ever could.

Thanks for the amusement, I'll be sure to send this one around!

by all means please do; I'm really getting tired of listening to snooty europeans suffering from the delusion that they're still somehow relevant.

[trish]

The ultimate aim of gun control is to totally disarm the citizenry and leave them defenseless against psychopaths who pull the strings and levers of power.

Now you’re just setting up a straw man. The aims (ultimate or not) of firearm regulation are analogous to the aims we have in regulation drivers and vehicles. The paramount aim is to insure that drivers know the conventions and procedures that optimize their own safety and perhaps more importantly the safety of others. Drivers are required to periodically prove their competence and renew their licenses. Not only are drivers licensed but so are cars. We do this not to keep cars out of the hands of criminals; nor to deprive the citizenry of transportation. We do this because two ton cars hurtling down the highway at expressway speeds are fucking dangerous. Guns are dangerous too. I see no reason why gun users shouldn’t be required to have current licenses and why guns shouldn’t be registered. No body wants to take away your guns. That is NOT the ultimate aim, or any aim of gun control. That’s just a fear tactic.

Oh, and if you’re afraid the commies (or the FEDS) might know where all the guns are if we register them, well, they’ve already downloaded the membership list of the NRA. If you want to keep your guns safe from the commies…quit the NRA now and move to another town so they can’t find you.

[El Nino]

Nice job cherry picking. I already made the greater point abundantly clear. Give it up. Let the people be free

BTW, Nice assumption that I am in the NRA, but I am not nor will I ever be. Not a fan of the backdoor regulations by the chairs and leadership. The members on the other hand are a great bunch by and large, but need to realize that the NRA is now in the hands of people who twist and distort the 2nd.

[Oli]

The third paragraph of the BBC article disproves your initial argument sport.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

You realize that England and Wales has a population of some 53 million people.

There were 59 homicides with firearms. (0.11/100,000 people)
There were, using your data, 18,489 firearm offenses. (3.55/100,000 people)

Yeah, gun violence is out of control in England!


Let's bring this closer to home, there were 16 firearm homicides in Toronto in 2007, in a population of 2.48 million. (0.645/100,000 people) Man, the firearm homicide rate in Toronto is almost 6 times that of England. You guys need gun control.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/statistics/ytd_stats.php

[El Nino]

Oli, you are gravely misled. And without further a due, I rest my case

The Relationship Between Gun Control And Genocides

[LINK]
__________________________________________________ _______________

Excerpts from

THE WAR ON GUN OWNERSHIP STILL GOES ON

as appearing in March 1994's Guns & Ammo magazine.
__________________________________________________ _______________

LETHAL LAWS

Military rifles are society's "life preservers." Without them gun
control can ultimately lead to mass murder.

By Jay Simkin

The Down-Side of Gun Control

Advocates cannot see any harm in gun control, but it has a nasty
downside. Its victims number in the tens of millions. Its downside is
genocide: the mass-murder of civilians on account of religion,
language, or political views. Since 1900, at least seven major
genocides have occurred worldwide involving 50-60 million victims (see
table).

MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES -- THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL
Date of
Perpetrator # Murdered Gun-Ctrl Source
Gov. Date Target (Estimated) Law Document
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Ottoman 1915-17 Armenians 1-1.5 Mil. 1866 Art. 166,
Turky Penal Code

Soviet 1929-53 Anti-Comm. 20 Million 1929 Art. 128,
Union Anti-Stal. Penal Code

Nazi 1933-45 Jews, 13 Million 1928 Law on Fire-
Germany Anti-Nazis, arms & Ammun.
& occupied Gypsies April 12,
Europe Weapons Law,
March 18

China 1948-52 Anti- 20 Million 1935 Arts. 186 & 7
Communists Penal Code.
1966- Pro-Reform
1976 Group

Guatemala 1960-81 Mayan 100,000 1871 Decree #36
Indians 1964 Decree #283

Uganda 1971-79 Christians, 300,000 1955 Firearms Ord.
Pol. Rivals 1970 Firearms Act

Cambodia 1975-79 Educated 1 Million 1956 Arts. 322-328,
Persons Penal Code

TOTAL VICTIMS: 55.9 MILLION
__________________________________________________ _______________

(English translations of the original gun control laws responsible for
all this genocide are in the book, Lethal Laws, available from:

JPFO, Inc.,
2872 South Wentworth Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53207
$24.95 pp.

They also have many other items available, including side-by-side
comparisons of Nazi and U.S. gun control laws.)

The rest of this article deals with the relationship between gun
control and genocide in some detail. It's very enlightening. The
author cites many sources, and also shows:

* Government officials are the world's largest mass murderers.
* How we can prevent genocide in America -- and how it almost
happened HERE to 125,000 Americans in 1941-42.
* The government is NOT all-powerful: All law enforcement (including
military) in the US is only 1.1% of the population.
* Several cases where armed citizens have prevented genocide
(Afghanistan is one example).
* The Chicago Police Department report: from 1965 to 1992, there
were 21,204 gun murders -- Nine (9) were from bullets that might
have come from a military-type weapon!

Read the rest of this article in the March 1994 issue of Guns & Ammo.
The author has been researching this and writing about it for many
years.

[El Nino]

The third paragraph of the BBC article disproves your initial argument sport.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

You realize that England and Wales has a population of some 53 million people.

There were 59 homicides with firearms. (0.11/100,000 people)
There were, using your data, 18,489 firearm offenses. (3.55/100,000 people)

Yeah, gun violence is out of control in England!


Let's bring this closer to home, there were 16 firearm homicides in Toronto in 2007, in a population of 2.48 million. (0.645/100,000 people) Man, the firearm homicide rate in Toronto is almost 6 times that of England. You guys need gun control.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/statistics/ytd_stats.php

[trish]

This Amendment does not “grant” any rights. It guarantees a “right of the people” that already exists.

So did this right pop into existence when the first gun was made? Conceived? Since the beginning of time before there were people to have rights? Just how does the metaphysics work here?


The “well-regulated Militia” of which it speaks does not mean the federally armed and sponsored National Guard, but rather indigenous people skilled in both the use of firearms as well as teamwork in the field.

So is the woman who buys a Saturday Nite Special and drops it loaded but never used in her purse a skilled member of a militia? Would you like to sit next to her in the bus if she keeps it loaded and cocked in her purse? Or do we agree with the second amendment that guns should not be in the hands of those who are unskilled in their use. Take a course, take a test, get a license, keep it current. Not only is this consistent with today’s ruling, but it seems to required by El Nino’s reading of the meaning of “militia”.

[GroobySteven]

... and you have illustrated my points better than I ever could.

Thanks for the amusement, I'll be sure to send this one around!

by all means please do; I'm really getting tired of listening to snooty europeans suffering from the delusion that they're still somehow relevant.

Erm, replace snooty, with sensible and very relevant. Obviously, you don't realize how far the US has slipped behind the rest of the world in the last few years on so many levels.

Stating that you "baled us out of a war" (ahem!) over 60 yrs ago has no relevance and even less so when the last two wars in Vietnam and Iraq were unmitigated disasters caused by un-founded fears that your country propigated to it's own people.

I'm not anti-American - I'm anti-stupidass policies - and your gun laws are pretty close to the top.

[BrendaQG]

'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '


So, like, bazookas?

Like thermonuclear ICBM's? Perhaps a suitcase nuke or two.

I think some common sense would have to be employed. I am thinking that if a private person can afford it they should be able to have and operate a fully armed Tank or fighter aircraft, armed with conventional weapons. In today's world those are bearable arms.

[El Nino]

'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '


So, like, bazookas?

Like thermonuclear ICBM's? Perhaps a suitcase nuke or two.

I think some common sense would have to be employed. I am thinking that if a private person can afford it they should be able to have and operate a fully armed Tank or fighter aircraft, armed with conventional weapons. In today's world those are bearable arms.


Get real Brenda, your sarcasm and the loftiness of that statement is ludicrous.

[Oli]

Oli, you are gravely misled. And without further a due, I rest my case


Where's the link? Cherry picking the parts that fit your argument?

What was the % of personal gun ownership in Germany in 1933? How about Czechoslovakia in 1938? Your Hitler quote in a previous post was about conquered people. Do you, or the author, actually believe that personal gun ownership would have been anything other than a speed bump the the Wehrmacht and the SS?

Do you really believe that counting casualties of the Chinese Civil War, which ended in 1949, aids your argument? The Great Leap Forward killed more people, and no one used guns there.

Where were the guns when the Hutu butchered the Tutsi in Rwanda?

I'm not for taking guns away from people, they would have to include mine. I am for sensible regulations (background checks, limits on purchases per time period, ammunition types). I just don't like hyperbole, obfuscation and outright lies in a debate.

[El Nino]

LIES? LIES??? HAHAHA, screw you man. Those are well known stats! Google, Genocide and Gun Control, dog. And furthermore, one can organize or join a militia in the event that the SS or similar death squad comes through your neighborhood; and at least put up a fight and take a few out with you rather than be a sitting duck and helpless dweeb. Stand up for yourself, and your rights you little nancy. Don't let your freedoms be legislated away for a virtual eternity. Fuck this stupidity. How did the modern American become so UnAmerican? WTF!

The pussification of the American male is alive and well I tell Ya!

[BrendaQG]

I'm not being sarcastic there. If as the federalist papers cited say that arms means any and all weapons weather or not they existed at the time of the founding of our nation. Then thermonuclear weapons would be included. The only thing's keeping them out of a person's hands would have to be the impracticality of them as weapons. They are hardly of any use to the countries that have them other than as a deterrent. (consider the following. Bin laden is in all likely hood in Pakistan. Pakistan has the H Bomb and the means to deliver it by Bomber or Missile to Nato and other allies territories. If they did not have that capability we could be much more assertive with them.)


On a more serious note. Thatiger and Trish. I'm sorry but you are wrong on this one. The supreme court has just now gotten off the dime and ruled that laws that BAN handguns are unconstitutional. FIREARMS CANNOT SHOULD NOT AND WILL NEVER BE CONSTITUTIONALLY BANNED WITHOUT CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. So instead of arguing about the second amendment those who belive as you do need to try and get the constitution amended to explicitly ban firearms. I am sure that will work out just as well as prohibition did before.

[El Nino]

Please Brenda, what Joe SixPack owns a nuclear centrifuge to enrich fissile materials and turn it into a working TN device in their garage? Apples and oranges. Out of context. Dumb argument

[Oli]

LIES? LIES??? HAHAHA, screw you man. Those are well known stats! Google, Genocide and Gun Control, dog. And furthermore, one can organize or join a militia in the event that the SS or similar death squad comes through your neighborhood; and at least put up a fight and take a few out with you rather than be a sitting duck and helpless dweeb. Stand up for yourself, and your rights you little nancy. Don't let your freedoms be legislated away for a virtual eternity. Fuck this stupidity. How did the modern American become so UnAmerican? WTF!

The pussification of the American male is alive and well I tell Ya!

What makes you think that the final sentence was directed at you? You injected yourself into a debate I was having with another poster.

Your insults fall short slick, I didn't see you in Panama, the Gulf, the Mog or Bosnia.

Just another blow hard internet toughguy.

[El Nino]

LIES? LIES??? HAHAHA, screw you man. Those are well known stats! Google, Genocide and Gun Control, dog. And furthermore, one can organize or join a militia in the event that the SS or similar death squad comes through your neighborhood; and at least put up a fight and take a few out with you rather than be a sitting duck and helpless dweeb. Stand up for yourself, and your rights you little nancy. Don't let your freedoms be legislated away for a virtual eternity. Fuck this stupidity. How did the modern American become so UnAmerican? WTF!

The pussification of the American male is alive and well I tell Ya!

What makes you think that the final sentence was directed at you? You injected yourself into a debate I was having with another poster.

Your insults fall short slick, I didn't see you in Panama, the Gulf, the Mog or Bosnia.

Just another blow hard internet toughguy.



First of all, way to attack the messenger. And no, I wasn't in GW1 due to me being about 10 years old. I did however, take multiple courses in Hand 2 Hand, Tracking, evasion and camouflaging, Wild edibles and general survival courses from an instructor who teaches the same techniques to Seals, Swat and Rangers. I still practice and train currently. You never know when you're going to need to rely on your training. I'm all set joining the service though and getting my ass involved in some ludicrous foreign invasion...

And the fact that you did witness 3rd world hell holes and tyrannical dictatorships, should make you realize how important it is to have a serious balance of power between people and government. It is the job of the people to keep the government in check and their god given freedoms at bay. Long live the Bill of Rights, Long live America

[Tomfurbs]

Point is, no-one walks around the UK expecting the next arsehole to be carrying a loaded weapon.

And we feel a lot safer because of it.

If you carry a weapon (knife, hot tongs, M16) you will at some point have to end up using it, and accept the consequences, which may not be very good for you.

I have been mugged once in my life (which, for a lifetime of living in this sprawling city ain't bad). I just handed over my wallet and moved on, cancelled my cards the next morning. If I had tried to defend myself with a handgun the situation would have been a messy disaster, and I would probably be in prison.

There will always be illegal arms. The banning of firearms has fuckall to do with saving us from our govt (seriously grow up!), it has to do with saving us from gun happy yahoos getting drunk and shooting up their car, children, neighbours.

And anyone who brings in Hilter into this argument is really reaching. That is the closure for the poorly educated. Anti -Darwinists do the same thing.

It is like saying, because he was a vegetarian, veggies are two steps away from implementing Final Solution Mk 2.

[El Nino]

Point is, no-one walks around the UK expecting the next arsehole to be carrying a loaded weapon.

And we feel a lot safer because of it.

If you carry a weapon (knife, hot tongs, M16) you will at some point have to end up using it, and accept the consequences, which may not be very good for you.

I have been mugged once in my life (which, for a lifetime of living in this sprawling city ain't bad). I just handed over my wallet and moved on, cancelled my cards the next morning. If I had tried to defend myself with a handgun the situation would have been a messy disaster, and I would probably be in prison.

There will always be illegal arms. The banning of firearms has fuckall to do with saving us from our govt (seriously grow up!), it has to do with saving us from gun happy yahoos getting drunk and shooting up their car, children, neighbours.

And anyone who brings in Hilter into this argument is really reaching. That is the closure for the poorly educated. Anti -Darwinists do the same thing.

It is like saying, because he was a vegetarian, veggies are two steps away from implementing Final Solution Mk 2.


History repeats itself. You grow up

[dbev]

Frankly: what can you expect from a bunch of ultra-conservative judges nominated by GW Bush?

The NRA gratefully thanks.

Don't forget that this is the SAME court the republicans bashed all last week on their gitmo / detainee ruling.....

Maybe, it's all a matter of "pressures".

[Justawannabe]

This debate has been really interesting.... every thing from researched arguments to 'bumper sticker' slogans pushed as education.

- There is a world of difference between regulation of a product and banning it. Trying to make out the 'slippery slope' argument there is just weak.

- The logic behind owning a handgun and being able to oppose the government is also weak. If my .38 is going to help me stop a squad of marines with assault rifles, I haven't figured out how.

- Arming EVERYONE is no more likely to stop a Columbine than attempting to disarm everyone. First off not everyone is willing to carry a gun, nor is everyone willing to actually use one if they did have one. Second, if your not prepared, the guy coming after you with the gun already in hand is going to win while you fumble around in your purse, pocket or holster. What it would do is cut down on the monologuing I suppose as the attackers would shoot more frequently and explain themselves later.

- While you may not agree with Brenda, she is completely right in her question. At what level do you control 'arms'. The handgun, the tank, the rocket, the missiles? It is a matter of degree, not apples and oranges. Many individuals in the US have the resources to make biological weapons... how about those? Radioactive waste is commonly privately owned at one point or another... while it wouldn't be a true 'nuke', with the right contacts I could certainly make a nice explosive to spread that around a densely populated city center.

- No right is absolute in the US... no 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater, no unregistered and permited 'assembly' that blocks traffic... so if your really a good patriotic american you most likely accept the idea that even our basic rights accept some regulation.

Anyway, just some initial thought after reading through this thread... a good read btw... thanks everyone.

Sean

[trish]

Hi Brenda,

Thatiger and Trish. I'm sorry but you are wrong on this one. The supreme court has just now gotten off the dime and ruled that laws that BAN handguns are unconstitutional.

I don't know about Thatiger, but I'm not for banning handguns. I've mentioned somewhere in this very thread that I personally have no problem with people owning guns. I do think the activist court has set out to deliberately upset precedent. They could easily have left the amendment alone and found the DC ban to be unreasonable. I also think that licensing and registration (or something equivalent in function) are necessary to educate would be owners in the proper and safe use of handguns. Today's ruling leaves the question of regulation unanswered. That's why we're going to see tons of court cases on this issue.

Actually I think you have a point about the thermonuclear weapon. Seems to fit the definition. What this of course means is that the term "arms", in the context of the 2nd Amendment, has yet to be reasonably delimited.

[BrendaQG]

Nope a majority of Supreme court justices agree with my position. I think they know more about the constitution than any of us. Unlike say....the Dread Scott case in this case the court is opting to grant freedoms. In my personal Opinion more freedom is good. People will have to take responsibility for what they do with their guns. That's the way it ought to be.

Blame people not things for what is wrong with the world. Take away the guns and instead people would shoot arrows....


That brings me to another point. Those of you who think that guns cause violence or murder in public seem to forget the world was a violent place LONG before firearms were invented. People have shot arrows, thrown spears, stabbed and cut each other to pieces. Trampled their enemies with elephants, spread plague by using a Trebuchet to fling corpses into cities.... All of this long before firearms were invented.

[El Nino]

DC Gun Ban - Supreme Court Decision
I note one concern: For a clean showing of intent for the protection of individual rights, the vote would have been 9 to 0. With a vote of 5 to 4, that is one vote away from asserting a truly totalitarian, fascist government that knowingly, willingly, and intentionally wants to "de-claw" a population for increased management, control, and inevitable ease of abuse. .

Take a close look at the individuals behind that "4" vote. It appears they do not believe in "We The People" but lean towards and wish to enact "We the Controllers."

[Tomfurbs]

LMAO Well, I hope all your personal firearms make you feel 'safer' :roll:

[Tomfurbs]

Nope a majority of Supreme court justices agree with my position. I think they know more about the constitution than any of us. Unlike say....the Dread Scott case in this case the court is opting to grant freedoms. In my personal Opinion more freedom is good. People will have to take responsibility for what they do with their guns. That's the way it ought to be.

Blame people not things for what is wrong with the world. Take away the guns and instead people would shoot arrows....


That brings me to another point. Those of you who think that guns cause violence or murder in public seem to forget the world was a violent place LONG before firearms were invented. People have shot arrows, thrown spears, stabbed and cut each other to pieces. Trampled their enemies with elephants, spread plague by using a Trebuchet to fling corpses into cities.... All of this long before firearms were invented.

I can totally relate to this point. Why, my house was under a dual Trebuchet and Elephant attack only last week!

Those big-eared bastards shit all over the damn place!

[BrendaQG]

:-| :-| :-|

Well as a matter of fact.

Month's ago when I was afraid some jealous crazy tyrannies were going to try to kill me, beat me up etc. Because in their rage at my not taking BS they said they would do such things. One peripheral non entity of a person who only called herself in the message she left "my favorite white girl". This person threatened to shoot me, stab me, and various other things which I reported to the cops by playing the message. I went and got a restraining order. When I went to have it enforced by the police one advised me, off the record, that I should buy a pistol.

"Calling the cops when someone is about to harm you only means someone will come to find your corpse."

:-/
I don't expect the above to be believed by the bunch here and I don't care. (As i recall at the time allot of the assholes on this board were too busy acting resentful of me to listen to reason.) I just say this. Tranny land is a crazy place. If someone proves to be a threat to me I will not wait for them to carry it out! If the law does not protect me then I will protect myself.

Damm anything else. If it is a matter of life or death I will live and my enemies will die! :X

:-|
Heads have cooled since then. But I have not forgotten.
:-|

Now I have not bought that pistol but I cannot say that in the future if I felt a much more immediate physical threat to my life and existence I would act to preserve myself. Bank on that.

[El Nino]

Awww yeah!

[trish]

With a vote of 5 to 4, that is one vote away from asserting a truly totalitarian, fascist government that knowingly, willingly, and intentionally wants to "de-claw" a population for increased management, control, and inevitable ease of abuse. .Take a close look at the individuals behind that "4" vote.

Yeah, right. Look out for Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She wants to de-claw the populace and establish a totalitarian government. :lol:

[El Nino]

Laugh it all away Trish

[Tomfurbs]

So Brenda ..is your soon to be purchased handgun gonna make you feel safer?

[El Nino]

Why the hell wouldn't it? She now has a fighting chance if something potentially fatal was to occur. Grow some balls

Let me guess, you think government can always protect you and love the nanny-state right?

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves right now because of people like you...

[hippifried]

This decision overturns precident. I don't think it'll have much effect on anything.

The Federalist Papers were NOT written by the "founding fathers". They were written as op/ed pieces under a pseudonym by John Jay, James Madison, & Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton wrote most of them. But then again, he was the one who stood up at the convention & argued that the US should be a monarchy. Using the Federalist Papers to argue the bill of rights is always bogus because these guys argued against having any enumerated rights in the Constitution in the first place. They were a bunch of Machievellian anti-democratic elitist snobs. It was the antifederalists who balked at ratification without a bill of rights. If the federalists hadn't capitulated & promised that a bill of rights would be the first item on the agenda of the new Congress, we'd still be trying to make the Articles of Confederation to work. Or more likely, you easterners would be back as part of the British Commonwealth, Brenda would be speaking French, & I'd be living in Northern Mexico with the rest of the folks in what are now the southwest States. I can actually agree with Justice Scalia on a lot of things, & I have to admit that he's surprized me at times, but I just can't get on board this "originalist" bandwagon. Especially when the "originalists" dwell on the thoughts of maybe a half dozen people & ignore the opinions of everybody else that was directly involved.

By the way: I think everybody might be surprized at how Scalia ends up dealing with DOMA when it comes before the Supreme Court, & it will. :fc

One more thing:
Home invasions are an extreme rarity. The reason it's big news when some gun toter thwarts a crime is because it only happens once or twice a decade. The more likely scenario is that you go out & buy a gun, then some burglar steals it while you're working to make the payments on your credit card. I have guns, but not the delusions that go along with them. I just think it's a blast to go out to stalk & kill the mighty beer can. 99% of the reasons people give for owning a gun are pure bullshit.

[JelenaCD]

Finally , a win for the good folks . Law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves in their own homes from the criminal ! Of course you have to limit gun carrying in public yet in your own home you need to be able to defend yourself ! This is no brain common sense decision , what is scary is that 4 judges voted againest , these judges are clueless and a threat to the security of all americans !

[cockgobbler]

The third paragraph of the BBC article disproves your initial argument sport.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

You realize that England and Wales has a population of some 53 million people.

There were 59 homicides with firearms. (0.11/100,000 people)
There were, using your data, 18,489 firearm offenses. (3.55/100,000 people)

Yeah, gun violence is out of control in England!


Let's bring this closer to home, there were 16 firearm homicides in Toronto in 2007, in a population of 2.48 million. (0.645/100,000 people) Man, the firearm homicide rate in Toronto is almost 6 times that of England. You guys need gun control.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/statistics/ytd_stats.php

What those numbers don't show you is that the majority of gun crime in Toronto, and in Canada in general is commited with illegally smuggled firearms. In 2006, 1527 firearms (all types: rifles, shotguns, handguns)were "recovered" by Toronto police Services. Of those 1527 firearms seized in Toronto, only 64, that number includes "crime guns" and turn-ins by their legal owners were in the firearms registry (or in other words came from legal firearms owners) In Toronto we do not need more gun control. What we do need however is criminal control.

During the 2005 Ontario Provincial election is was revealed that 75% of murders in Ontario were committed by people who were out on bail or parole for other crimes at the time they killed someone. Inevitably, when a shooting occurs on Toronto streets, the "victim" and/or the shooter will be classified as "known to Police", politically correct speak for a criminal.

Criminals don't obey laws, so why would MORE gun control measures make a difference.

Do you know what it takes to legally purchase a handgun in Canada:

-Take Canadian Firearms Safety course - pass written and practical exam
-Take Can. Restricted Firearms Safety Course - pass another 2 exams
-Apply for a Restricted Possesion and Acquisition Licence (RPAL)
-Police will run background check, talk to ex-spouses, references ect.
-If approved you will recieve your RPAL about two months later
-to purchase a handgun, you must belong to an approved gun club.
-Join a gunclub (if not already a member)
-Go take the clubs safety courses and probationary periods to become a full member
-Go to gunshop, select gun to purchase
-Gun shop will apply to the Provincial Chief Firearms officer (CFO) for a Temporary Authorization to Transport (TATT).
-Once you get the TATT you can pick your firearm up from the gunshop and take it directly home to be put in your safe.
-The club will then apply on your behalf to the CFO for a Long term ATT valid for I think 5 years
-The ATT will allow you to take the handgun, trigger locked and in a lokced case directly from your home, to the range and back again.
-if your lucky, you will have you gun in about 8 - 10 months

P.S. I hardly call a one year drop in the rate of gun crime a "trend" No matter how one interperets the stats, there is no denying incidents of handgun crime went UP after Britian introduced their ban. And that again is my point. In 06/07 43% of firearms crime was handguns TEN years after the ban came into effect.. IF the ban worked that number should be ZERO.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue Oli.

[zippylongorgan]

I'm new to this forum and until now have steered away from politics and religion(lets face the facts, that is not why I came to this type of forum), but I felt compelled to reply because I am a gun owner. I would like to point out a few things i feel are pertinent to the discussion. 1) WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ONES ACTIONS? It takes a depraved heart to kill, like the saying goes guns dont kill people, people kill people. I have yet to see a gun jump up from a table and shoot someone without there being a person to PICK IT UP, AIM IT, AND PULL THE TRIGGER(premeditation). 2) Guns are not the only weapons being used to kill or maim. Perhaps we should enforce a ban on edged weapons or maybe baseball bats or golf clubs for that matter(either could be used to do the same thing)what about cars? drunks kill people everyday and in those cases the vehicle is the weapon. maybe we should have to get a permit to buy a car? THE POINT IS maybe we should use some common sense and enforce the current laws we have, because making news laws and not enforcing them does not make sense either. I hope I never have to repel an attack but if I did i'm glad I have a right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS because it gives me and my family a much better chance of survival and it will make the "DEPRAVED HEART" think twice.

[zippylongorgan]

And one more thing, CRIMINALS DON'T BUY GUNS LEGALLY ANYWAY, so the only people you hurt with these rediculous laws are the honest, hardworking citizens who should be able to protect themselves from the 'scum of mankind'. Common sense has not been employed by our governing officials for almost 2 decades ( I really miss you Mr. Reagan ) it is refreshing to see that some people in government are starting to see the 'error of their ways'.

[El Nino]

Great points Zippylongorgan and gobbler. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing lefto to debate. Thanks for the input. And jesus, Canada's gun laws are virtually identical to Massachusetts'. The process sucks and treat you are guilty until proven innocent! Tyranny

[trish]

I never seen a car of its own accord jump up and run someone over. But we still make drivers pass a test, keep their licenses current and register their cars. Why? Not because we're relieving drivers of their responsibilities but exactly the opposite...we're holding them responsible. It's time gun owners stopped whining and simply owned up to their responsibilities.

[chefmike]

I never seen a car of its own accord jump up and run someone over. But we still make drivers pass a test, keep their licenses current and register their cars. Why? Not because we're relieving drivers of their responsibilities but exactly the opposite...we're holding them responsible. It's time gun owners stopped whining and simply owned up to their responsibilities.

Well said as always, Trish.

[chefmike]

I really miss you Mr. Reagan

Yeah, those were the good old days....NOT!

[zippylongorgan]

I live in NJ, dont know how it is else where, but here you must get a permit for EVERY GUN you want to buy. The permit process consists of applying, paying the required fees(for criminal background check and mental health history)and waiting for these checks to be completed. First time I got one(1992) it took about 3 months. It doesnt end there, once you get the permit and go to purchase the firearm you have to go through an instant check before you may take possesion(to make sure the paperwork was not counterfitted) then you make take it home. The subsequent permits usually take about 4-6 weeks(I have 10 handguns and a large safe to keep them in). The moral of this story is trampling the rights of everyone just to stop a few bad apples is not democracy it is facism. Ask yourself this question(this is not directed at anyone in particular just people who think they have common sense) Why do the cities and states that have the highest crime rates also have the toughest gun laws?( example NEW YORK already has had 500+ murders this year.)

[Tomfurbs]

Why are you complaining? You got your gun in the end.

Do you think the selling of firearms should be completely unregulated? So anyone can buy one regardless of any history of mental illness/criminal convictions etc.?

[zippylongorgan]

No, I am not complaining i'm pointing out that there are adequate laws pertaining to this issue and that they should be enforced. Complaining would be if all those facist anti gun nuts got their way and none of us were allowed the right to chose what is in our best interest. Should I be able to tell you what is in your best interest? no, just as you should not be able to do the same to me. That is what true freedom is all about. Those are the principles that this nation was founded on. You completely missed the point I got my guns because I am a law abiding citizen with a clean criminal and mental history who didnt mind waiting for the checks. The criminal does not conform to society's laws they get their guns on the black market or out of the trunk of a car in some urban shithole. Common sense.

[zippylongorgan]

Hey chef mike, I think stephen colbert said it best when he said " I may not like what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

[trish]

True freedom is about ascertaining what is in OUR best interests, since the best interests of one individual will always conflict with the best interests of another. I'm glad you agree with the current gun laws. I agree with you, that guns don't kill people, people do (typically with guns). That's why the N.J. law doesn't require guns to get permits, it requires people to get permits (for their guns). Ever ask yourself why cities and states with high crime rates implement gun regulation? I think you will find the high crime rate came first and then the gun regulation. Moreover the rate goes down after the regulation is in place. Ever ask yourself why most police are for regulation of firearms?

[zippylongorgan]

I have trish and the answer I come up with is that the police, for all their good points and bad points, are an 'arm' of the state. The state doesn't want anyone to have a gun. The police are under no obigation to protect us as individuals. They can only respond after a crime has been commited. If you were being threatened by a psycho and called the police they would tell you that they can do nothing unless the threat is carried out. Are you willing to stake your life on that? Sure they may talk to the psycho but that would only make it worse, ultimately our own safety is our own responsibility. Those people who commit heinous crimes(school shootings and the like) are sick and should have been stopped long before they could carry out their plan(you don't think the parents of those columbine kids didn't know that their kids were capable of such acts?) ultimately responsibility starts and stops with the individual. All the gun laws on earth could not have prevented that, but the parents could have, if they had taken the responsibility.

[zippylongorgan]

And to Tomfurbs, the firearms industry is well regulated if you want to blame someone blame the 'state'(ATF and local municipalities) for dropping the ball, the laws are there they're just not enforced.

[El Nino]

True freedom is about ascertaining what is in OUR best interests, since the best interests of one individual will always conflict with the best interests of another.

ehhhhhhhh, WRONG....

True freedom is the exact opposite, and has nothing to do with "OUR" as it does, to each individual having their own personal sets of freedom.

This is "True freedom" as you say. Not freedom of a socialized variety.

[Oli]

True freedom is the exact opposite, and has nothing to do with "OUR" as it does, to each individual having their own personal sets of freedom.

This is "True freedom" as you say. Not freedom of a socialized variety.

Your idea of freedom only works if there is no one else around.

You will note that the Preamble to the Constitution says We the People... not I, the individual.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence says We hold these truths to be self-evident..., not I believe.

If you want all the freedoms you believe you are entitled to, buy an uninhabited island and move there. You live in a society with 300+ million other citizens. To maximize the freedoms everyone has, some of your's have to be curtailed. Don't like that, see my suggestion above.

[Paladin]

Paladin writes:
what are you smoking? "The People" ALWAYS refers to individuals. As I stated earlier, read the 10th ammendment.

Except when it doesn’t. The national parks belong to the people, but individuals can only visit them. The nation’s resources belong to the people, but only corporations reap them. The government is of the people, but only collectively, unless your personal friends with Dick Cheney. In the second amendment, “the people” refers to those who would serve in a State Militia…not to women…nor girls…nor to two slaves who as a sum were equal to more than one citizen. The second amendment only exists because some States were fearful that the Federal government would disband the State militias and replace them with a Federal army.

You need to read and UNDERSTAND the 10th ammendment. I'm sure you are capable of the former, but I seriously doubt the latter.

[trish]

Sorry, El Nino, about using the phrase “true freedom”. It would not have been my choice but I was referring to zippy’s use of it in his post above:


That is what true freedom is all about. Those are the principles that this nation was founded on.

Here I took it to be referring to the enlightenment notions of freedom upon which this nation was built. This notion is a far cry from the nineteenth century Nietzschean ideal of freedom and its watered down Nazi and Libertarian offshoots which you seem to be advocating.

[trish]

You need to read and UNDERSTAND the 10th ammendment. I'm sure you are capable of the former, but I seriously doubt the latter.

So in a court of law would you address the Judge saying, "There it is Judge. I can't help it if you're too stupid to understand it, but the 10th Amendment cinches my case"?

No, of course not. Of course when you're speaking with geniuses (or people who already see things the way you do), then you can get away with minimal explanations. But when you're talking to ignoramuses (as you claim you are) you must explain your case step by step, as if to a child, and show how each law applies toward your conclusion.

So enlighten us O' Great Paladin. Give us your own erudite spin on the meaning of 10th Amendment and how it applies to all the different States that have firearm registration laws and how it refutes (as you seem to indicate it does) something that I've said in my post.

[Oli]

Ask yourself this question(this is not directed at anyone in particular just people who think they have common sense) Why do the cities and states that have the highest crime rates also have the toughest gun laws?( example NEW YORK already has had 500+ murders this year.)

You should bring fact, not supposition to back up your argument. And the facts do not back you up.

Murders in NY (2007)-801 - 4.2/100,000 people

Murders in Texas (2006)-1384 - 5.9/100,000 people

Murders in Florida (2007)-1202 - 6.4/100,000 people

Murders in California (2005)-2503 - 6.8/100,000 people


Now, throwing numbers around is all fine and dandy, but what do they mean? If we are to believe you, that tough gun laws don't deter crime, than California, Texas and Florida MUST have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Oh wait, Florida has a 'Concealed Carry' law. Could it be that you have over simplified your argument to make your point? That you chose to leave out factors like population density, gang membership, drug trade, flow of illegal weapons (a major problem in NYC),economic and educational opportunities and general economic trends because bringing them in makes your argument less persuasive?


http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/pio/annualreport/2007release.pdf
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/06/cit06ch2.pdf
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/violent/fa_index.asp
http://stats.doj.ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof05/00/1.htm

[Tomfurbs]

All I can say is, I live in a country with a gun-ban (with the exception of shotguns, which are very difficult to get a license for, and you must live in a rural area).

I have never had need of a handgun, neither has any of my family, friends, or friends' families.
That is not to say we have never been mugged/robbed, but being armed would not have helped in any way.

I cannot understand why someone would need 10.

The mere fact that my (law-abiding citizen) neighbour could legally own many firearms is more worrying to me than some drug dealer who bought his weapon on the black market.

What if he gets drunk, or snaps, or lets it off accidentally, or his children get a hold of it?

If you want to live in a country, you have to accept some responsibilty for your fellow citizens. It is not all about your individual rights.

[BrendaQG]

Let me get this bull shit straight. You feel safer with a drug dealer owning illegal firearms which would include anything up to military grade assault weapons........ Than you do with a law abiding peaceful citizen owning a handgun or two to defend his home with?

That just does not make any sense to me at all.

[Tomfurbs]

Drug dealers will always have illegal weapons. They also tend to shoot other drug dealers, not joe public.

'Law-abiding' citizens is an oxymoron. Every other jackass on the street owning a firearm is scary, for the reaons I have already outlined.

I never meet drug-dealers in my day-to-day life, but I meet a lot of ignorant, short-tempered, overcompensating 'law-abiding' citizens. If they were armed I would be shitting myself.

When I think of how many bar-fights/road-rage/bus-rage/street arguments I have seen, I would not want any lethal weapons within range of them.

[zippylongorgan]

Oli, my mistake, I was talking about new york city alone not the entire state. but thanks for the stats. You cant compare a city to an entire state but it does show that more murders occur in the city than the entire state put together. Give me some stats on CHICAGO, MIAMI, DALLAS, LOS ANGELES AND D.C. and I'll bet it illustrates the point I was making.

[zippylongorgan]

Tom , you're whole argument was pure ignorance. Maybe you should never leave your house or 'flat' again you could just as easily get stabbed. Do you know if any of your neighbors have knives or swords? And by the way, you made my point for me by saying that criminals ("drug dealers") will always have guns because THEY DON'T GET THEM LEGALLY! My responsibility to my neighbors stops at my front door. And as far as shitting yourself I have one word for you 'DEPENDS'

[Tomfurbs]

Of course criminals will get guns illegally. There is nothing anyone can do about that.

Arming the rest of the population is not going to make anything or anyone safer. It will just esculate the level of violence, when violent incidents occur, as, you must agree happens in the US.

I don't think people should have knives or swords either. How about that?

And yes, we call 'apartments' flats over here. Travel is good.


Europeans don't feel it is our 'Right' to carry a lethal piece of metal. Guess we're all ignorant pussies, right?

Your responsibilty to your countrymen doesn't stop at your front door. That is why there are such things as ASBO's, and taxes, among other things.

[trish]

Tom's makes an excellent point:

I never meet drug-dealers in my day-to-day life, but I meet a lot of ignorant, short-tempered, overcompensating 'law-abiding' citizens. If they were armed I would be shitting myself.

When I think of how many bar-fights/road-rage/bus-rage/street arguments I have seen, I would not want any lethal weapons within range of them.

Now DEPENDS might be take care of the shits, but it won't prevent rage-murders or bring the dead back to life. Making someone wait a month before they can buy a gun will definitely attenuate that sort of gun violence. A certain kind of criminal will always have guns. But the generally law abiding citizen whose having a temper tantrum might not become a criminal if he's given a chance to cool down while he's waiting for his gun permit to be processed.

[trish]

I know Tom is actually arguing for non-ownership of guns. I don't see that ever happening in the U.S. Indeed I personally don't see anything wrong with people owning guns and keeping them in their house, provided they're licensed and registered. I do see a grave danger in concealed carry. I'd rather not live anywhere people are allowed to carry sidearms. But if some one does carry, I think it should be out in the open so everyone can see the asshole they're dealing with. If you going to carry, have some balls and carry openly.

[zippylongorgan]

You see this is good dialogue, I don't carry because I don't have a permit to do so and I agree with you trish on your point. Violent tendencies don't just come to a person one day they are the product of long standing issues in one's own life. That is what the mental and background checks are supposed to 'weed out'. And by the way there are towns in Texas were it is legal to carry a firearm as long as it is not concealed. It has to be in plain sight. Criminals prey on the weak and most certainly would not choose a target with a gun. I'll admit the system isn't perfect but it is the one we have and we must live with that. It is far better to choose for oneself than to have your choices made for you don't you think? (this goes for all politcal and personal issues, example abortion) We the people have the right to vote, we live by that standard and that is what makes this country great.

[trish]

I still prefer to live where there's no carry, concealed or otherwise. Choices that effect the safety of others are not entirely your own. It's not at all clear to me that the Texas towns that allow open carry have stumbled onto the solution we "must live with". I agree, it's not perfect.

[Oli]

Oli, my mistake, I was talking about new york city alone not the entire state. but thanks for the stats. You cant compare a city to an entire state but it does show that more murders occur in the city than the entire state put together. Give me some stats on CHICAGO, MIAMI, DALLAS, LOS ANGELES AND D.C. and I'll bet it illustrates the point I was making.
:smh
You would lose that bet:

Murders/100,000 population( National Average = 7)
In descending order by population

New York City - 7.3

Los Angeles - 12.4

Chicago -16.6

Houston - 18.2 (Largest city in Texas)

Phoenix - 15.4

Philadelphia - 27.7

San Antonio - 9.2

San Diego - 5.4

Dallas - 15

Miami - 19.6

State rates are even more telling. Very conservative, pro gun rights states lead the list of firearms deaths /100,000 people:

Alaska - 20
Louisiana - 19.5
Wyoming - 18.8
Arizona - 18
Mississippi - 17.3
Nevada - 17.3
New Mexico - 16.6
Arkansas - 16.3
Alabama - 16.2
Tennessee - 15.4

The ten at the bottom shouldn't come as a surprise to you, with tough gun laws.
Iowa - 6.7
Maine - 6.5
Minnesota - 6
New Hampshire - 5.8
New York - 5.1
Rhode Island - 5.1
New Jersey - 4.9
Connecticut - 4.3
Massachusetts - 3.1
Hawaii - 2.8

Yeah, those numbers definitely back up what you were saying
:smh

http://miamifl.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[El Nino]

Judge Advises Crime Victim To Arm Herself After Attack:

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_130537.asp

[Oli]

Judge Advises Crime Victim To Arm Herself After Attack:

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_130537.asp

See state # 10 above.

[trish]

The woman said she was driving on E. 17th Street when Beard came riding up on a bicycle and pulled a gold handgun on her. When she refused to get out of the car, he began hitting her in the head with the gun.


Bob Moon's an idiot and he's lucky if his advice doesn't accelerate gun violence in Chattanooga. I think if we brain-stormed we could find a hundred alternative actions the woman could've taken other than to pull her own gun, while driving, from her purse in the seat beside her or in the glove compartment without alerting the cyclist what she was up to.

I'll begin...

1) She could've swerved into the cyclist and knocked him over.

2) She could've hit him with her handbag, instead of reaching into it fumbling for her gun.

...

[El Nino]

When the people of any given society are disarmed, only tyranny will ensue. This is the big picture; and historically, has happened over and over. Get over it.

[trish]

Am I talking disarmament El Nino? Where? In which post? Stop diverting the conversation by addressing straw man issues. Get over your paranoia.

3) She could've opened her door hard into the cyclist.

[El Nino]

Trish, that was just a general statement for the board, not directed at you. Sorry for the mix up. And for the record, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they are NOT after you"... ;)

[Cuchulain]

I have to laugh whenever I hear someone claim their guns will protect them from government tyranny. Face it, all our AK-47s and AR-15s are useless compared to the high tech toys the miltary or the increasingly-militarized police possess. That's a fight that can only be won by vigilance and political activism.

Btw, I own a fair number of guns, including pistols and so-called assault weapons. I keep them in a massive old safe except for the occasional target shooting foray. I don't depend on them for self protection and my home has never been broken into (the ancient Mastiff roaming my property may have something to do with that).

I know plenty of people who legally carry handguns almost constantly and some of them are, imo, too loony to be trusted with them. I'm never surprised when one of them shoots himself or someone else in a fit of drunken despair. I've seen too many lives ruined simply because some idiot had access to a gun.

I'm not suggesting everyone give up their guns. I just think that all the die-hard gun owners should be willing to look at both sides of the issue. Owning a gun brings a heavy responsibility with it. Think long and hard before you assume that responsibility.

[BrendaQG]

If that's true then how are the Iraqi Insurgents and the Taliban kicking our armies asses?

No offense to our men and women in uniform.

The mindset that technology can totally determine the outcome of a battle is just not a good one to have. It's defeatist.

Did Sitting Bull and the bands that follow him say "oh the white man has better tech so we should just give up? No they beat us spectacularly when ever numbers were even.

Did the Zulu's at Isandwana (sp?), in the same year as the little big horn, say oh English we surrender to the superiority of your firearms? No they charged with their short steel spears and won. Those English were to sure of their superiority.

Latter by less than a day those Zulu's were minorly defeated at Rourke's Drift. Those men used the terrain and a fortified position to hold out against odds. They could have had Longbow's, pikes and done as well.

Last but not least. In the Sudan the English did invade the realm of the Mahadi. This time they had machine guns.... the Ansar, the Sudanese army, had as far as I know no firearms what so ever. They were pulverized.

You can look all of these up. I know them from watching allot of the history channel.

The lesson to learn from this is that technology can make but a small difference in the outcome of a war or battle. Cunning, determination, and respect for the prowess of the enemy, lead to victory.

I suspect in a battle between our army and a band of armed citizens the citizens would win because we would have much more respect for the armies ability than they would have for ours. God forbid that ever happens.

[trish]

It’s not crazy to think that weapons in the hands of citizens would make a difference were the government to attempt a military take over of itself. What’s crazy is to think the government would attempt a military take over of itself. Perhaps you think the military might attempt to take over the government. But here, that would require the cooperation of three independent branches of the military…not likely. Perhaps you imagine an armed populace upsetting its government. But that would be kinda stupid if it was a government of and by the people themselves. It’s just an adolescent fantasy to think that U.S. citizens need guns to fend off the government and the “revenuers”.

But hey, I’m not against citizens owning guns. I just know that the primary justifiable reason to own one is sport. I grew up in a rural area where people hunted and shot target for recreation. Every family I knew owned several rifles. I myself hunted deer, pheasant and rabbit with my father. When I was a kid I could pick off aspirin tablets at 50 yards with a 22 caliber. Since then I lived in several cities and knew lots of urban gun owners. None of them were sportsman. Most of them never shot their weapon more a handful of times. No one ever told them they shouldn’t pass the barrel across someone’s body, even when it’s not loaded. No one told them a gun must be cleaned and oiled to remain in working order. No one told them to aim, hold their breath and squeeze the trigger when firing. They are generally so unfamiliar with their weapons they have to think about how to put the clip in, or where the safety is. Their weapon is a distraction and not an advantage. Most of my urban friends who own guns would be better off without them when the chips are down. They have a much better chance of surviving a rare encounter with a hood, by running or handing over their cash. (Not to mention the morality of killing someone to protect your cash). If you plan to buy a gun only for self-defense, chances are you will not have the patience or the interest required to become familiar enough with your weapon. It will be a hindrance and a distraction when you actually need to do something to save yourself. If you don’t know how to use it well, and you keep it loaded and carry it around in your purse, or glove compartment or on your person, you are a danger to others around you. When a loaded gun is hidden in a woman’s purse, how many times do you suppose the barrel is pointed at an innocent person or child? If you are thinking of buying a gun, neither for the sport of hunting nor the sport of target shooting but only because you think you need it for protection, then please think carefully. If you actually do buy one, treat it and others around you with the utmost respect. It will be one of the most dangerous things you own. I urge you to pledge to yourself never to misuse it through ignorance or malice.

[Oli]

If that's true then how are the Iraqi Insurgents and the Taliban kicking our armies asses?

No offense to our men and women in uniform.

The mindset that technology can totally determine the outcome of a battle is just not a good one to have. It's defeatist.

Did Sitting Bull and the bands that follow him say "oh the white man has better tech so we should just give up? No they beat us spectacularly when ever numbers were even.

Did the Zulu's at Isandwana (sp?), in the same year as the little big horn, say oh English we surrender to the superiority of your firearms? No they charged with their short steel spears and won. Those English were to sure of their superiority.

PS-the History Channel is entertainment, not really a good source of information.

Latter by less than a day those Zulu's were minorly defeated at Rourke's Drift. Those men used the terrain and a fortified position to hold out against odds. They could have had Longbow's, pikes and done as well.

Last but not least. In the Sudan the English did invade the realm of the Mahadi. This time they had machine guns.... the Ansar, the Sudanese army, had as far as I know no firearms what so ever. They were pulverized.

You can look all of these up. I know them from watching allot of the history channel.

The lesson to learn from this is that technology can make but a small difference in the outcome of a war or battle. Cunning, determination, and respect for the prowess of the enemy, lead to victory.

I suspect in a battle between our army and a band of armed citizens the citizens would win because we would have much more respect for the armies ability than they would have for ours. God forbid that ever happens.

Afghanistan
Coalition Casualties-788
Taliban Casualties-20,000+

Iraqi Freedom
Coalition Casualties-4426
Insurgent Casualties-19,429

Yeah, that's an ass kicking.:screwy

Little Big Horn
Custer-210
Souix, Cheyenne, Arapaho-290

Isandlwana
British-852 (out of 1400)
Zulu-1000 (out of 22,000)

Rorke's Drift
British-17 (out of 139)
Zulu-600 (out of 4000)

17 vs 600 doesn't sound like a 'minor defeat'.

How about The Battle of Chosin Reservoir
US-2500
Chinese-12500

Battle of the Black Sea-Mogadishu
US-19
Somali insurgents-1200-5500

Firepower is THE critical factor on the battle field. And armed citizens against a determined Military stand no chance.

The greatest revolution of the past 20 years was the end of Communism in the USSR. The unarmed citizens prevented the Army from interceding in the coup d' etat attempt by hard line Communists, precipitating the disillusion of the Soviet state.

PS-The History Channel is entertainment, not really a great source of information.

[InHouston]

Great. Expect more school shootings and workplace shootings.

All one need do to commit a school or workplace shooting is to merely buy a gun from criminals on the street, 2nd amendment or no 2nd amendment.

[InHouston]

[quote="BrendaQG
I personally feel that the framers of the constitution wanted the populace to at least theoretically be able to defend itself from a govt. gone mad....


which is exactly what they intended! But that was a while ago.

And how does that not apply in today's times?. Look at Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe has defeated his presidential opponent by sending out groups of people to beat citizens openly in public who do not support him. His opponent backed out of the presidential race, and now Mugabe is still president.

This is what happens when you disarm the population and is exactly what our forefathers wanted to prevent with the 2nd amendment. This could never happen in America.

[InHouston]

Virtually all those school shootings happen in "Gun Free" Zones. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

Because the people in those zones are easy targets.

[InHouston]

If you want teachers to carry concealed firearms, then you never had the idiots I had for teachers.

Even though the right of the “people” (which needn’t, until today, be read as individuals) to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment, very little is said in today’s decision about regulation.

Wrong ... the people are guaranteed the right to bear arms with regulatory laws in place. If you're a convicted felon, you give up that right. To carry a concealed weapon, you must attend training and extensive background checks to ensure you're competent to do so, and on and on.

[InHouston]

No, I'm not sucking up to her. I just happen to think that trish, along with Peggy Gee, is one of the most intelligent and informed posters in this forum. Just my humble opinion which, according to the first amendment, I am entitled to utter.

One can post intelligent and eloquent arguments and still be dead wrong.

[trish]

That's right, you tell 'em InHouston. Now if we could just make it the ONLY way to commit a school or workplace shooting we'd be well on our way to cutting down the number of them.

[InHouston]

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".


“Arms” doesn’t mean what you think it means either. The founding fathers thought arms meant flintlocks and knives. The initial intention of the founding fathers is not at issue. Their intentions can go no further than their own understanding of what an arm is or what a militia is or what a drug gang is. Every court interprets the constitution in its own unique way. Even near contemporary understandings are sometimes deemed irrelevant. This was the case today when the current court effectively said, “let precedents be damned.” Today we find out that not only is it important what’s written in the constitution, but equally important is who gets to interpret what’s written. The NRA might rail against activist courts, but today they are not so secretly reveling in the activism of the current court.

Hmmm ... guns are still primarily operate with a bullet, powder, and an igniting charge just like in days of our founding fathers. This is an obvious case of someone providing extensive analysis on a subject matter they have little or 'no hands-on' experience with at all.

[InHouston]

I haven't read this entire thread, it's an old topic. Here's my take on it:

If I was put in a situation where I needed to defend myself or someone else, I would like to have the option of shooting the bad person, with a gun. I have never owned a gun, but I support the second amendment.

I own a sword, but that really doesn't do much good in most situations. I suppose I could jab people with it, but I would probably just get shot by a gun.

:)

Hence the old saying, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight."

[InHouston]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

And then you woke up.

[InHouston]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...


On behalf of my fellow Americans...FUCK YOU !

Ditto! :claps

In America you don't have to be forced down to your knees and shot in the back of the head like a rat.

[InHouston]

Ahhh - excellent. I love watching the continuing decline of America and how it provides amusement to the rest of the developed world.

Like a car crash in slow motion ...

But you still take the money.

:lol:

Not America's money. Individuals pay a company for a service. The American people's money, is very sadly, being taken by their own country against their will.

Lame

[InHouston]

The ultimate aim of gun control is to totally disarm the citizenry and leave them defenseless against psychopaths who pull the strings and levers of power.

Now you’re just setting up a straw man. The aims (ultimate or not) of firearm regulation are analogous to the aims we have in regulation drivers and vehicles. The paramount aim is to insure that drivers know the conventions and procedures that optimize their own safety and perhaps more importantly the safety of others. Drivers are required to periodically prove their competence and renew their licenses. Not only are drivers licensed but so are cars. We do this not to keep cars out of the hands of criminals; nor to deprive the citizenry of transportation. We do this because two ton cars hurtling down the highway at expressway speeds are fucking dangerous. Guns are dangerous too. I see no reason why gun users shouldn’t be required to have current licenses and why guns shouldn’t be registered. No body wants to take away your guns. That is NOT the ultimate aim, or any aim of gun control. That’s just a fear tactic.

Oh, and if you’re afraid the commies (or the FEDS) might know where all the guns are if we register them, well, they’ve already downloaded the membership list of the NRA. If you want to keep your guns safe from the commies…quit the NRA now and move to another town so they can’t find you.

You are a driveling idiot.

[InHouston]

Stating that you "baled us out of a war" (ahem!) over 60 yrs ago has no relevance ...

Yes it does, for if we didn't you'd be speaking German this very day.


I'm not anti-American - I'm anti-stupidass policies - and your gun laws are pretty close to the top.

You should stick to what you know ... like porn.

[trish]

You are a driveling idiot.

Whoa! There's a come back! Thanks for reposting all my points (and not meeting any of them) Mr. non-idiot InHouston :)

[Tomfurbs]

Stating that you "baled us out of a war" (ahem!) over 60 yrs ago has no relevance ...

Yes it does, for if we didn't you'd be speaking German this very day.



and you'd be speaking Japanese :roll: :roll: :roll:

[InHouston]

You are a driveling idiot.

Whoa! There's a come back! Thanks for reposting all my points (and not meeting any of them) Mr. non-idiot InHouston :)

You made no valid points. That's why they're missing in my reply. You're obviously intelligent, but any knucklehead can read and read and read and spout rhetorical points. However, I look for one's judgment on matters. Your judgement on most matters I see in your posts ... well ... stinks.

[InHouston]

Stating that you "baled us out of a war" (ahem!) over 60 yrs ago has no relevance ...

Yes it does, for if we didn't you'd be speaking German this very day.



and you'd be speaking Japanese :roll: :roll: :roll:

Nice one dumbass.

[trish]

You made no valid points.

Whoever heard of meeting valid points? It's the invalid ones that require attention. Thanks again Mr. non-idiot InHouston.

[Tomfurbs]

Stating that you "baled us out of a war" (ahem!) over 60 yrs ago has no relevance ...

Yes it does, for if we didn't you'd be speaking German this very day.



and you'd be speaking Japanese :roll: :roll: :roll:

Nice one dumbass.

Hehe...awesome.

Been outside the parish lines lately?

[BrendaQG]

Houston dont even bother on this topic. Some people are less tolerant over positions on gun laws than they are on abortion, religion, or sexual orientation. Minds are closed.

While I for one can see their points they cannot see ours. They think that things like what's happening in Zimbabwe, or anyplace else that tyrants rule is impossible here because of pieces of paper! We know better, our rights are only guaranteed by the implied threat to anyone who would make a tyranical grab for power here. The people would rise up in force and start anew if the worst happened.

[InHouston]

Houston dont even bother on this topic. Some people are less tolerant over positions on gun laws than they are on abortion, religion, or sexual orientation. Minds are closed.

While I for one can see their points they cannot see ours. They think that things like what's happening in Zimbabwe, or anyplace else that tyrants rule is impossible here because of pieces of paper! We know better, our rights are only guaranteed by the implied threat to anyone who would make a tyranical grab for power here. The people would rise up in force and start anew if the worst happened.

It's encouraging to see members like you and others on this forum who share and understand the true essence of what our forefathers intended while framing the constitution.

[trish]

Now come on Brenda. Do you really think the three separate branches of the military are waiting in the wings to take over the instant the populace is disarmed? Do you really believe that “our rights are ONLY guaranteed by the implied threat” of our civilian arms? I know Tom seems to be arguing for a stronger case than I. I’m not against people owning firearms. I’m not saying a degradation and collapse of the U.S. government can never happen. But to contend that our current political stability is due ONLY to the threat of armed civilians is a misrepresentation that does us a disservice. Not only is it silly but it’s irresponsible to recommend that we all now arm ourselves for sake of political stability.

It’s also a bit disingenuous (don’t you think?) to claim:


While I for one can see their points they cannot see ours.


I think Tom,Oli and I and others see and understand your arguments perfectly well. I don’t doubt that you understand Tom’s positions and arguments as well as mine (though I am beginning to doubt whether InHouston does). We do disagree on the weight that should be accorded various propositions. You claim to think Zimbabwe can happen here, next month. That it’s only armed civilians keeping the coup at bay. I understand those points. I just think they’re way overplayed and outlandishly overstated.

[trish]

InHouston intimates:


... guns are still primarily operate with a bullet, powder, and an igniting charge just like in days of our founding fathers. This is an obvious case of someone providing extensive analysis on a subject matter they have little or 'no hands-on' experience with at all.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=497011&highlight=#497011

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=497293&highlight=#497293

[InHouston]

InHouston intimates:


... guns are still primarily operate with a bullet, powder, and an igniting charge just like in days of our founding fathers. This is an obvious case of someone providing extensive analysis on a subject matter they have little or 'no hands-on' experience with at all.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=497011&highlight=#497011

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=497293&highlight=#497293

Sorry, but it just doesn't add up. Since you, so you say, hunted and lived in those communities, I find it difficult to understand the comments you made about hunting being so dangerous. Seems to me that you’re exaggerating your experience with firearms. Okay you could shoot an aspirin tablet at 50 yards with a .22. That’s what kids do. Sounds to me like you accompanied your father on hunting trips as a child, but have little hands-on experience with, and in-depth knowledge of guns. That fact is gleaned by the ignorant comments you make. You sound just like people who have limited experience with firearms.

It is what it is. Personally, I think you’re bullshitting everyone on this.

[Tomfurbs]

ArmedInHouston slurged:

' This is an obvious case of someone providing extensive analysis on a subject matter they have little or 'no hands-on' experience with at all.'


Along with growing up around rural sportsmen, I have also fired live rounds with my University OTC.

It is not guns that frighten me. People with guns frighten me, and I do not think there are enough responsible people out there to warrant allowing firearms.

The nutjob psychopath is only a nutjob psychopath AFTER he's shot up a bus.

Until then, he's just another 'law-abiding' citizen.


Your weopons will not save you from this dreaded home invasion you all seem to be living in fear of. All it will do is ratch up the violence level of the situation.

[Tomfurbs]

Some people are less tolerant over positions on gun laws than they are on abortion, religion, or sexual orientation. Minds are closed.



So in your mind, the right to carry a pistol is equal to the right to practice your own religion, sleep with who you want to, and choose what happens to your own body?


Brenda, you are a goldmine.

And people who like to slam people's heads in car doors should definitely not be allowed near a loaded gun when they get their psych on!!!!!!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:

[InHouston]

ArmedInHouston slurged:

' This is an obvious case of someone providing extensive analysis on a subject matter they have little or 'no hands-on' experience with at all.'


Along with growing up around rural sportsmen, I have also fired live rounds with my University OTC.

It is not guns that frighten me. People with guns frighten me, and I do not think there are enough responsible people out there to warrant allowing firearms.

The nutjob psychopath is only a nutjob psychopath AFTER he's shot up a bus.

Until then, he's just another 'law-abiding' citizen.


Your weopons will not save you from this dreaded home invasion you all seem to be living in fear of. All it will do is ratch up the violence level of the situation.

What a joke. How does growing up around rural sportsmen give you experience with firearms? Training gives you experience. So, you fired live rounds in your ROTC program in college. Whoop-tee-fucking-doo man. I bet you only had to do that once to qualify for some lame-ass extra credit in your course. This only confirms my point that you don't know what you're talking about. I train twice a week at a defensive combat shooting range, expending 200 to 500 “live rounds” a week, and have been for years now. That averages out to around 19, 000 “live rounds” a year that I fire.

As far as your opinions on home invasions that "we all seem to be living in fear of" and that “our guns can't save us from”. Well ... I'll tell you this ... come kick in my door uninvited. You'll get two in your chest and one in your grape, and I will happily toss your hemoraging ass out on the front lawn for the coroner to pick up. And there isn’t a court in this state that will convict me for it either, because I was in the right, it’s the law, and that’s just the way it is … wimp. You have a victim mentality. That’s your problem, not mine.

[Tomfurbs]

People like you armed?

You bet I'm scared.

[InHouston]

People like you armed?

You bet I'm scared.

Good ... you should be. I sleep better at night knowing you're scared and that you wouldn't dare try to commit a crime against me, which is exactly what the 2nd amendment is for.

[Tomfurbs]

I don't commit crimes.

A criminal is not going to be put off however.

What worries me is you getting drunk, deciding to play with your little guns and letting a round off that kills your neighbour's son.


But you're 'responsible', and you shoot 10000000000000 rounds a day with your buddies, so that will never happen of course.

[trish]

Gee, I sleep pretty well in spite of the fact that the dangerous Tomfurbs is out there...somewhere.

[Tomfurbs]

Gee, I sleep pretty well in spite of the fact that the dangerous Tomfurbs is out there...somewhere.


lmao

[BrendaQG]

Now come on Brenda. Do you really think the three separate branches of the military are waiting in the wings to take over the instant the populace is disarmed? Do you really believe that “our rights are ONLY guaranteed by the implied threat” of our civilian arms? I know Tom seems to be arguing for a stronger case than I. I’m not against people owning firearms. I’m not saying a degradation and collapse of the U.S. government can never happen. But to contend that our current political stability is due ONLY to the threat of armed civilians is a misrepresentation that does us a disservice. Not only is it silly but it’s irresponsible to recommend that we all now arm ourselves for sake of political stability.

It’s also a bit disingenuous (don’t you think?) to claim:


While I for one can see their points they cannot see ours.


I think Tom,Oli and I and others see and understand your arguments perfectly well. I don’t doubt that you understand Tom’s positions and arguments as well as mine (though I am beginning to doubt whether InHouston does). We do disagree on the weight that should be accorded various propositions. You claim to think Zimbabwe can happen here, next month. That it’s only armed civilians keeping the coup at bay. I understand those points. I just think they’re way overplayed and outlandishly overstated.


A democracy or republic rarely becomes all at once in a big coup. It does what it did in Wiemar Germany, or Republican Rome. It is a slow creep over years or generations. Slowly a free people sacrifice a right here, a villagers there, all for the sake of security or money. Then somewhere down the road comes Ceasar and his legions and instead of being opposed by the people they are welcomed as they cross the Rubicon. So starts the events that lead to the total acceptance of virtual one man rule by Octavian Augustus, who kept up a fiction of republican rule, and called himself "Princeps" and "Imperator"...."First citizen" and "War Leader". (Sounds allot like our president's titles dosen't it?)


{In between now and then we have revolutionary non monarchic France going from a republic of sorts to becoming a Bonaparte Empire over continental western Europe.}

In the German case allot of the powers Hitler had when he first became Chancellor were already granted to that office through the actions of past chancellors or Wiemar Germany. His party did not have control of the Riechstag until after a fire destroyed their building.... which was blamed on the Communist party as a terrorist attack.... From there Hitler got the powers of the President as well as Chancellor and a open ended decaration of emergency powers.... That is what created the Third Riech. Not the army but the legislature voting it into existence!

That is what the second amendment keeps from happening here in the United Sates of America. Not some pie in the sky thing that has never happened in the past but something that has happened time and again in free democratic socitities where the people were not armed.

The average life span of republics and democracies is hisrotically about 240 years ( The roman republic lasted about 450 years, Wiemar germany about 20 the rest fall in between.) Where the populace was not armed and not accustomed to freedom. The USA has been around longer than that average. If we are to outlast as a republic even the majesty of Rome we need to keep and bear arms as a people. As a symbol of our collective freedom, rights, and responsibilities as Citizens of the United States of America.

[Tomfurbs]

I think you will find that the reasons behind Hitler becoming Chancellor had a lot more to do with Britain and France's policies towards Germany in 1918 than with a populace denied access to guns.

[Oli]

A democracy or republic rarely becomes all at once in a big coup. It does what it did in Wiemar Germany, or Republican Rome. It is a slow creep over years or generations. Slowly a free people sacrifice a right here, a villagers there, all for the sake of security or money. Then somewhere down the road comes Ceasar and his legions and instead of being opposed by the people they are welcomed as they cross the Rubicon. So starts the events that lead to the total acceptance of virtual one man rule by Octavian Augustus, who kept up a fiction of republican rule, and called himself "Princeps" and "Imperator"...."First citizen" and "War Leader". (Sounds allot like our president's titles dosen't it?)


{In between now and then we have revolutionary non monarchic France going from a republic of sorts to becoming a Bonaparte Empire over continental western Europe.}

In the German case allot of the powers Hitler had when he first became Chancellor were already granted to that office through the actions of past chancellors or Wiemar Germany. His party did not have control of the Riechstag until after a fire destroyed their building.... which was blamed on the Communist party as a terrorist attack.... From there Hitler got the powers of the President as well as Chancellor and a open ended decaration of emergency powers.... That is what created the Third Riech. Not the army but the legislature voting it into existence!

Try reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. Your grasp of Hitler's rise to power is tenuous.

And try Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", or Durant's "Caesar and Christ", they may help you understand understand why your statements about Caeser and the Roman people are pure bunk.


That is what the second amendment keeps from happening here in the United Sates of America. Not some pie in the sky thing that has never happened in the past but something that has happened time and again in free democratic socitities where the people were not armed.

That may have been what it was intended for 219 years ago, but that definition doesn't fit anymore. That doesn't mean it has no import in the life of the Country now, but not as an armed check on governmental power. The introduction of a large standing army negated that idea.

[Paladin]

I think you will find that the reasons behind Hitler becoming Chancellor had a lot more to do with Britain and France's policies towards Germany in 1918 than with a populace denied access to guns.

Quite true, but an unarmed populace certainly made it much easier for him to take over and made it impossible for the populace to get their country back - that is until after it was reduced to rubble.

[Oli]

I think you will find that the reasons behind Hitler becoming Chancellor had a lot more to do with Britain and France's policies towards Germany in 1918 than with a populace denied access to guns.

Quite true, but an unarmed populace certainly made it much easier for him to take over and made it impossible for the populace to get their country back - that is until after it was reduced to rubble.

The German people didn't want their country back. While they were not all National Socialists, the population was generally happy with their lot under Hitler and the Nazis.

[trish]

Given all the complex economic and political factors that come into play as an empire or a nation declines, factors that slowly erode away at the cohesiveness of the state over the generations (according to your own account, Brenda), then surely you must agree that an armed citizenry is not the ONLY thing that stands between the life and death of that political whole. A myriad of OTHER puzzle pieces stand in the way and need to (be) removed to precipitate or further the decline. That, at the very least, you must concede.

Moreover, an armed populace can sometimes have a quite deleterious effect on the health of a nation. The KKK was an armed subset of the populace and it was responsible for the suppression, torture and death of countless brave people. It wasn’t stopped by an armed populace…it was the populace armed. It wasn’t stopped by the military or the police. The KKK melted in its own shame as the press exposed it for what it was. FBI investigations, the American Courts and the movement for Civil Rights dissolved the clan into the rancid little vestige that’s left today.

The Nazi’s in Germany had a great deal of support among anti-Semitic civilians who armed themselves and took to the streets to confront and harass those not sympathetic to their black cause.

Civilian troops of young southern rebels fought treasonous battles against the United States of America so that southern gentlemen might continue to own slaves.

Before an armed citizenry can be of any use to the cause of democracy, the citizens have to want a democracy; and they have to know what a democracy is.

[Thatiger23]

I'm not being sarcastic there. If as the federalist papers cited say that arms means any and all weapons weather or not they existed at the time of the founding of our nation. Then thermonuclear weapons would be included. The only thing's keeping them out of a person's hands would have to be the impracticality of them as weapons. They are hardly of any use to the countries that have them other than as a deterrent. (consider the following. Bin laden is in all likely hood in Pakistan. Pakistan has the H Bomb and the means to deliver it by Bomber or Missile to Nato and other allies territories. If they did not have that capability we could be much more assertive with them.)


On a more serious note. Thatiger and Trish. I'm sorry but you are wrong on this one. The supreme court has just now gotten off the dime and ruled that laws that BAN handguns are unconstitutional. FIREARMS CANNOT SHOULD NOT AND WILL NEVER BE CONSTITUTIONALLY BANNED WITHOUT CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. So instead of arguing about the second amendment those who belive as you do need to try and get the constitution amended to explicitly ban firearms. I am sure that will work out just as well as prohibition did before.

OK brenda what the fuck are you smoking this is my first post in this thread........And i like the idea of overturning the ban its a good thing for DC..i guess you have to live in the DMV area thats all

[iloveshemales77]

Drug dealers will always have illegal weapons. They also tend to shoot other drug dealers, not joe public.

'Law-abiding' citizens is an oxymoron. Every other jackass on the street owning a firearm is scary, for the reaons I have already outlined.

I never meet drug-dealers in my day-to-day life, but I meet a lot of ignorant, short-tempered, overcompensating 'law-abiding' citizens. If they were armed I would be shitting myself.

When I think of how many bar-fights/road-rage/bus-rage/street arguments I have seen, I would not want any lethal weapons within range of them.

Happiness is a warm gun!

[iloveshemales77]

double post

[iloveshemales77]

If you want teachers to carry concealed firearms, then you never had the idiots I had for teachers.

Trish has a point here... and I'd have to add quite a few cops to that list.

When I lived in Guatemala I knew a guy who carried a grenade around with him. He also accidentally shot himself.

And as for...


I just happen to think that trish, along with Peggy Gee, is one of the most intelligent and informed posters in this forum. Just my humble opinion which, according to the first amendment, I am entitled to utter.

Thanks a lot buddy...

Giggle,
TS Jamie :-)

sorry luv, forgot. You belong on my "A" list as well! :wink:

[Tomfurbs]

Drug dealers will always have illegal weapons. They also tend to shoot other drug dealers, not joe public.

'Law-abiding' citizens is an oxymoron. Every other jackass on the street owning a firearm is scary, for the reaons I have already outlined.

I never meet drug-dealers in my day-to-day life, but I meet a lot of ignorant, short-tempered, overcompensating 'law-abiding' citizens. If they were armed I would be shitting myself.

When I think of how many bar-fights/road-rage/bus-rage/street arguments I have seen, I would not want any lethal weapons within range of them.

Happiness is a warm gun!

That is an awesome film, I have to say.

[iloveshemales77]

Yes, I agree. Come to think of it, this one pertains to the subject at hand as well...

[InHouston]

Given all the complex economic and political factors that come into play as an empire or a nation declines, factors that slowly erode away at the cohesiveness of the state over the generations (according to your own account, Brenda), then surely you must agree that an armed citizenry is not the ONLY thing that stands between the life and death of that political whole. A myriad of OTHER puzzle pieces stand in the way and need to removed to precipitate or further the decline. That, at the very least, you must concede.

Moreover, an armed populace can sometimes have a quite deleterious effect on the health of a nation. The KKK was an armed subset of the populace and it was responsible for the suppression, torture and death of countless brave people. It wasn’t stopped by an armed populace…it was the populace armed. It wasn’t stopped by the military or the police. The KKK melted in its own shame as the press exposed it for what it was. FBI investigations, the American Courts and the movement for Civil Rights dissolved the clan into the rancid little vestige that’s left today.

The Nazi’s in Germany had a great deal of support among anti-Semitic civilians who armed themselves and took to the streets to confront and harass those not sympathetic to their black cause.

Civilian troops of young southern rebels fought treasonous battles against the United States of America so that southern gentlemen might continue to own slaves.

Before an armed citizenry can be of any use to the cause of democracy, the citizens have to want a democracy; and they have to know what a democracy is.

blah blah blah ....

[InHouston]

I don't commit crimes.

A criminal is not going to be put off however.

What worries me is you getting drunk, deciding to play with your little guns and letting a round off that kills your neighbour's son.


But you're 'responsible', and you shoot 10000000000000 rounds a day with your buddies, so that will never happen of course.

Pussy

[trish]

blah blah blah ....


Pussy

Is that the state of argument in Texas, or does the mental bankruptcy end with you, InHouston? Don't you have to go now and play toy soldier or something?

[Tomfurbs]

Thanks to those two one-word posts, ArmeddrunkparanoidandguncrazedInHouton can consider his nutjob arse well and truly kicked.

Yessir!

[Oli]

Pussy

Insults-for when your argument doesn't hold water.

http://bc.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/CRT/CRT444/15509-47dg.jpg

[Tomfurbs]

Try reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. Your grasp of Hitler's rise to power is tenuous.



+ 1.

It is a fabulous book. Detailed, measured and engaging. I used it as source material for my first-year thesis.

Very fine book. Doubly so because it was published within 20 years of the events it describes.

[InHouston]

Your weopons will not save you from this dreaded home invasion you all seem to be living in fear of.

Google and enter the following keywords "home invasion armed citizen"

I rest my case ... fucking moron.

[trish]

here's a NY TIMES article on gun safty and children

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E2DA133FF934A2575BC0A9629C8B 63

And here are just a couple of recent news items:

another murder suicide performed with the home firearm that was to protect the family from armed intruders.

http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2008/05/29/parents-child-shot-to-death-in-chicago-suburb/

and your everyday teenager killed by your everyday drive-by shooting. (InHouston, you might like to fantasize about how if he had gun he would have seen the car coming and pulled it out to heroically save himself and stop the perps.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/man_killed_in_algiers_shooting_2.html

[BrendaQG]

So you are saying that the Nazis seizing all the personal weapons in Germany was not part of their power grab?

You sir are the one with a tenuous grasp of how the world works. IRL only lead, and steel guarantee rights and freedom, not papers and courts.

Consider the fact that a court order is nothing without armed police to enforce it. Then consider what it would be like if the Govt. in its infinite wisdom took away both the first amendment rights after they took away the second amendment right. You say they would never... Well after the populace is disarmed and assuming a totally loyal police and military who would stop them? Who, how, with what would such a power grab be stopped here? By green tea drinking liberals, writing poems, and using their mighty pen's. Get real.

[trish]

It wasn't court orders that [helped] focus the attention of the nation on the KKK[?] It was shame that diminished their ranks and stopped their membership growth. Once the eye of the nation was on them, few wanted to have anything to do with KKK. The Civil Rights Movement was a triumph for unarmed, nonviolent metamorphosis of government.

If you haven't seen it recently, I urge readers to watch the film "Witness" with Harrison Ford. It illustrates the issues of non-violent witnessing and the use of firearms quite nicely.

Consider how an unarmed populace wrested India from Great Britain with non-violent protests and civil disobedience.

Brenda..you keep bringing up other factors that stand in the way of our nation's over throw, and yet you haven't retracted your claim that an armed citizenry is the ONLY thing that keeps the government stable. Don't you mean it's the ULTIMATE defense...the defense of LAST RESORT?

[Tomfurbs]

[quote="BrendaQG"]
IRL only lead, and steel guarantee rights and freedom, not papers and courts.

[quote]

The gift that keeps on giving.

[Oli]

IRL only lead, and steel guarantee rights and freedom, not papers and courts.



The gift that keeps on giving.

There is a certain "Lord of the Flies" feel to that logic, isn't there.

[Oli]

So you are saying that the Nazis seizing all the personal weapons in Germany was not part of their power grab?

Wait...your contradicting yourself


In the German case allot of the powers Hitler had when he first became Chancellor were already granted to that office through the actions of past chancellors or Wiemar Germany. His party did not have control of the Riechstag until after a fire destroyed their building.... which was blamed on the Communist party as a terrorist attack.... From there Hitler got the powers of the President as well as Chancellor and a open ended decaration of emergency powers.... That is what created the Third Riech. Not the army but the legislature voting it into existence!

So which was it, a power grab or legislative vote? Which party was the largest minority in the Reichstag before the fire? Which party was the largest minority after the fire (as no one had a majority)? When did Hitler assume the powers of the President? When exactly were the guns taken from the population?



You sir are the one with a tenuous grasp of how the world works.

That may be, but you won't find me spouting off on topics that I have only a cursory knowledge of. BTW, how many times did US Grant loses Presidential elections?
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=31764&start=30


IRL only lead, and steel guarantee rights and freedom, not papers and courts.

Without "paper and courts", you have no freedoms or rights. You have only the survival of the best armed and strongest. That is anarchy, not democracy.


Consider the fact that a court order is nothing without armed police to enforce it. Then consider what it would be like if the Govt. in its infinite wisdom took away both the first amendment rights after they took away the second amendment right. You say they would never... Well after the populace is disarmed and assuming a totally loyal police and military who would stop them? Who, how, with what would such a power grab be stopped here? By green tea drinking liberals, writing poems, and using their mighty pen's. Get real.

I would cite Trish' mention of India throwing off the yoke of the British, or the Russians, Latvians, Estonians, Germans, Slovaks, Czechs, Poles, Lithuanian or Ukrainians ending decades of Communist rule with hardly a shot fired.

Were the people of Eastern Europe armed to the teeth? No.
Were the Indians? No.
Were the French peasants armed in 1789? No, just starving.

[hippifried]

The reality is that "the gun issue" is only an issue to the gun nuts. Nobody else really cares.

[loki]

The reality is that "the gun issue" is only an issue to the gun nuts. Nobody else really cares.You will care when they deny you the freedoms you now enjoy because of gun rights. One of my friends is from Brazil. He loves the fact that when a criminal brandishes a gun he can do the same. First you must realize that in his country people do have guns, but only the police who are no where to be found or criminals. In this country he can protect his mate. And not to mention that the best populace for a dictatorship is an un-armed one. People like you are going to be the death of this country. I have a saying. I was born in the USA but will die in the USSA.

[InHouston]

The reality is that "the gun issue" is only an issue to the gun nuts. Nobody else really cares.

You make it an issue when you refer to lawful gun owners as "gun nuts".

[trish]

InHouston "wrote"
I rest my case ... fucking moron.

You rested your case...fucking moron. Go ejaculate some lead with your toy soldier friends. They're para-masturbating at the target range right now.

[InHouston]

here's a NY TIMES article on gun safty and children

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E2DA133FF934A2575BC0A9629C8B 63

And here are just a couple of recent news items:

another murder suicide performed with the home firearm that was to protect the family from armed intruders.

http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2008/05/29/parents-child-shot-to-death-in-chicago-suburb/

and your everyday teenager killed by your everyday drive-by shooting. (InHouston, you might like to fantasize about how if he had gun he would have seen the car coming and pulled it out to heroically save himself and stop the perps.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/man_killed_in_algiers_shooting_2.html

Everyday teenager on his porch in New Orleans ... probably a gang related drive-by shooting.

Murder suicides are the fault of the perpetrator, and not the firearm. Hypothetically if guns did not exist, he probably would have stabbed her and hung himself as alternative means to kill.

As far as gun safety in the home with children, one need only properly educate and train children to understand and respect firearms. Case in point. A well trained 11 year old girl in the proper use of a handgun:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDlodGEp_9o

This young girl will never have to worry about becoming a victim of a violent crime.

[Tomfurbs]

Your weopons will not save you from this dreaded home invasion you all seem to be living in fear of.

Google and enter the following keywords "home invasion armed citizen"

I rest my case ... fucking moron.

That is your second attempt at answering that point, but all you can manage is monosyllabic grunting.

You disappoint me, ArmedandsleeplessInHouston. You've shattered my perception of gun nuts as lucid Adults capable of holding a conversation.

[InHouston]

InHouston "wrote"
I rest my case ... fucking moron.

You rested your case...fucking moron. Go ejaculate some lead with your toy soldier friends. They're para-masturbating at the target range right now.

What a hypocrit you are. And you absolutely support the 2nd amendment right Trish? It's obvious you have little and/or no respect for gun owners.

[BrendaQG]

@Houston

Like I said man. It's no use talking about this issue. Let's just say this. Trish and Oli et. al. who think like them on this issue are right and we are wrong.... (Until the day eventually comes when they will need people like you and I to confront Tyrany with violence. Be it the tyrany of our own govt or hijackers on a airplane. They just don't understand that some evil people only respect a threat of violence.)

[Tomfurbs]

You are suggesting shooting guns on an airplane???!!!!

Please keep firearms away from this woman!!!

[InHouston]

Your weopons will not save you from this dreaded home invasion you all seem to be living in fear of.

Google and enter the following keywords "home invasion armed citizen"

I rest my case ... fucking moron.

That is your second attempt at answering that point, but all you can manage is monosyllabic grunting.

You disappoint me, ArmedandsleeplessInHouston. You've shattered my perception of gun nuts as lucid Adults capable of holding a conversation.

Umm hmmm ... and you misspelled the word 'weapons' brainiac.

[Tomfurbs]

But you managed to spell 'Pussy' and 'Moron' correctly, totally solidifying any point you were trying to make.

How about making a third attempt, boss?

[InHouston]

@Houston

Like I said man. It's no use talking about this issue. Let's just say this. Trish and Oli et. al. who think like them on this issue are right and we are wrong.... (Until the day eventually comes when they will need people like you and I to confront Tyrany with violence. Be it the tyrany of our own govt or hijackers on a airplane. They just don't understand that some evil people only respect a threat of violence.)

I agree, however that is very inprobable. What is possible is that an armed attacker might come crawling through their window late one night. And as they shutter under the bed, or in a closet absolutely defenseless, or face down on their hands and knees as the intruder manipulates their life, maybe they'll understand what the hell we're talking about.

[InHouston]

But you managed to spell 'Pussy' and 'Moron' correctly, totally solidifying any point you were trying to make.

How about making a third attempt, boss?

I have more reasonable conversations with my 11 year old nephew.

[trish]

Some gun owners I respect. You ... not so much.

You did rest your case didn't you, or were you lying about that?

[Tomfurbs]

But you managed to spell 'Pussy' and 'Moron' correctly, totally solidifying any point you were trying to make.

How about making a third attempt, boss?

I have more reasonable conversations with my 11 year old nephew.

How many guns does he own?

[InHouston]

Well, if you won't consider my opinion, then listen to an actual interview with a criminal who shot and killed two people for their car because they didn't want to walk home. While they were at it, they went through the dead men's pockets and made off with about $2.00

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6830893&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

[trish]

Everyday teenager on his porch in New Orleans ... probably a gang related drive-by shooting.

The point is, a gun wouldn't have save him. Indeed, if you're right, he probably had one.


Murder suicides are the fault of the perpetrator, and not the firearm. Hypothetically if guns did not exist, he probably would have stabbed her and hung himself as alternative means to kill.

Of course, all crimes are the fault of the perp. Hypothetically, if he tried to stab his entire family they might have overcome him. In reality, he shot them with a gun which happen(ed) to (be) handy when his insanity peaked.

[trish]

I considered your opinion. You rested your case. Now you want to submit more anecdotal crap as evidence?

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

http://www.futureofchildren.org/pubs-info2825/pubs-info_show.htm?doc_id=154414

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/

http://www.paxusa.org/

[InHouston]

Some gun owners I respect. You ... not so much.

You did rest your case didn't you, or were you lying about that?

Some gun owners? Well, as a law-abiding gun owner, and in the spirit of the 2nd amendment and being an American, it would be my moral and civic responsibility as an armed citizen to come to your aid Trish if your life was being endangered by a criminal. That means I respect you as a human being and your right to life, and to live your life and die on your own terms, and not on the whimsical terms of a criminal who doesn't value your life. I own and train with firearms to defend life, not to just wait for the opportunity to legally shoot someone like the 'gun nut' you perceive me to be.

That is about the fairest rebuttal that I post on this topic.

[trish]

I can take care of myself thank you. I don't (...) trust you to judge whether my life is in danger. If I handle the situation, most likely nobody winds up wounded or dead. If you interfere with your two big shiny steel guns there in your avatar...who knows what'll happen.

(edited for grammar)

[trish]

By the way, if you rest your case you don't get a rebuttal.

[InHouston]

I can take care of myself thank you. I don't would trust you to judge whether my life is in danger. If I handle the situation, most likely nobody winds up wounded or dead. If you interfere with your two big shiny steel guns there in your avatar...who knows what'll happen.

Yeah right. Spoken like a true victim. Remember when I referred to your judgment? You'll be one the one that winds up wounded or dead should you handle such a situation yourself. I suppose you feel you can reason with a killer. Good luck.

I reached out to you in a sincere and respectful gesture in an attempt to find some middle ground, and you cut my hand off. No problem. I congratulate you on your shining and consistent examples of how to 'think inside the box'. Your wisdom and judgment stinks to high heaven.

I'm outta here. :moon

Reply notifications are now off on this thread.

[InHouston]

By the way, if you rest your case you don't get a rebuttal.

Get back in your little box Trish.

[trish]

Thanks again, but I really don't want anyone getting shot because some brainless oaf thinks he's rescuing me. Keep your guns out of other people's business, InHouston, please.

So you're outta here, eh? I hope so. I know you and your toy soldier buddies must have that special bond that develops between men who para-masturbate on the rifle range together. The next time, why don’t all you guys ejaculate in a circle?

[hippifried]

The reality is that "the gun issue" is only an issue to the gun nuts. Nobody else really cares.

You make it an issue when you refer to lawful gun owners as "gun nuts".
Even after the '39 ruling, None of this was ever an issue until Wayne la Pierre & his merry band of right wing fanatics managed to take control of the NRA. Now they're just another lunatic fringe group This is going to get even more interesting the first time some nutbar tries to use this ruling to justify strapping an M60 or a rocket launcher to the back of his pickup.

[Paladin]

I know you and your toy soldier buddies must have that special bond that develops between men who para-masturbate on the rifle range together. The next time, why don’t all you guys ejaculate in a circle?

Because they might get caught in the "crossfire"

:lol:

[Paladin]

You are suggesting shooting guns on an airplane???!!!!

Please keep firearms away from this woman!!!

Contraty to many uninformed people's opinion, a few bullet holes in the side of an airplane will have NO adverse effects on the plane's safety or maneuverability. This is a documented fact. The world's first pressurized airplane, a little Boeing job by the number B-29 sustained numerous large caliber shots and was able to keep it's internal pressure by merely increasing power to the superchargers.

No one is going to get sucked out of a bullet hole in an airplane.

[Paladin]

It wasn't court orders that [helped] focus the attention of the nation on the KKK[?] It was shame that diminished their ranks and stopped their membership growth. Once the eye of the nation was on them, few wanted to have anything to do with KKK. The Civil Rights Movement was a triumph for unarmed, nonviolent metamorphosis of government.

If you haven't seen it recently, I urge readers to watch the film "Witness" with Harrison Ford. It illustrates the issues of non-violent witnessing and the use of firearms quite nicely.

Consider how an unarmed populace wrested India from Great Britain with non-violent protests and civil disobedience.

Brenda..you keep bringing up other factors that stand in the way of our nation's over throw, and yet you haven't retracted your claim that an armed citizenry is the ONLY thing that keeps the government stable. Don't you mean it's the ULTIMATE defense...the defense of LAST RESORT?

Ghandi and his followers were dealing with a CIVILIZED people, Great Britain. You cnnot equate Ghandi & GB with Nazi Germany, or the bolsheviks, etc.......

That's just as bad as mc-same-as-bush trying to equate iraq with post WWII, and post Korea, which WILL haunt him in november.

[Tomfurbs]

You are suggesting shooting guns on an airplane???!!!!

Please keep firearms away from this woman!!!

Contraty to many uninformed people's opinion, a few bullet holes in the side of an airplane will have NO adverse effects on the plane's safety or maneuverability. This is a documented fact. The world's first pressurized airplane, a little Boeing job by the number B-29 sustained numerous large caliber shots and was able to keep it's internal pressure by merely increasing power to the superchargers.

No one is going to get sucked out of a bullet hole in an airplane.

I'd rather not be in a crowded, sealed tube with people firing guns at each other, thanks.

The fact that we are suspended in mid-air is just icing on the cake.

[trish]

Paladin writes:
Ghandi and his followers were dealing with a CIVILIZED people, Great Britain. You cnnot equate Ghandi & GB with Nazi Germany, or the bolsheviks, etc.......

If you read carefully I'm asserting no such equation. What I do presume is that Americans are civilized people and that we too can settle our disagreements peacefully. It's a wonderful adolescent fantasy that in the apocalyptic future an armed citizenry will take back their government from the politicians. In reality, Americans have a lot of recourse besides violence. We've more political power then we use. Look at how many people actually vote. We've representation in local, State and Federal government. We have the courts, we have unions, we have political action organizations, we have freedom of assembly...and we have civil disobedience. I'm not saying the adolescent fantasy is an impossibility...I'm not saying we should ax the 2nd amendment...I'm just saying we've got a long long way to go before take over of the government by armed citizens is even a remotely serious consideration. Frankly, if it ever came down to it, I don't know whose side I'd be on (it depends on which citizens and which government). The citizens can be pretty stupid and morally warped sometimes.

[hippifried]

We ARE the government.

[El Nino]

Really? Right Now?

[trish]

Yes. Right now.

[El Nino]

really?

[trish]

Really

[El Nino]

House Keeping

[trish]

Stick with the orginal question. Hippiefried noted: "We ARE the government." You questioned it and I affirmed it. Twice. I'll affirm it again if you like: Yes, We ARE the government.

If we don't have the same laws or understandings that we started with in the eighteenth century, then that's our doing. For what goes right, we take the credit. For what goes wrong, we take the blame. I proudly count myself IN on this historical ride.

[El Nino]

House Keeping

[trish]

I'd say a constitutional republic is the term. There are indeed powerful extra-governmental influences( e.g. corporations, unions, political parties, individual action organizations, political action organizations , environmental organizations etc.) but none of them are in command of the government. All of them court public opinion and all of them court the same representatives the public elects. It's nowhere near an oligarchy as I see it. When it gets that far, I'll pick up my old hunting rifles and walk along side InHouston. That's a measure of how far we are from having an oligarchical governement.

[El Nino]

House Keeping

[trish]

Really? There is nothing Constitutional about it anymore. Methinks you are living in LaLa land... Take a look around you.

Nothing? The Supreme Court is still handing down decisions and the litigants still do abide by the Supreme Court.

I gave my reasons why I categorize our nation as a constitutional republic. You have chosen not to address them. So I will continue to focus on your claim. You say we live in an oligarchy. If you mean this literally (which I take it you do) and not in some metaphorical sense, then there must literally be a handful of people in absolute command over all aspects of the government and who have no need of convincing or beguiling any part of the legislature, executive branch, judicial branch, military or the public in order to have their way. They simply demand and the rest comply without question. That's oligarchy.

Our form of government is not that of an oligarchy nor is it effectively an oligarchy. Sure powerful industries sometimes get what they want through influence, fair and corrupt. Halliburton for example had a great deal of interest in starting the war in Iraq and they had a great deal of influence through Cheney and Bush. Haliburton was and is in a position to bribe and influence, but it is not in a position to command the government. Can you imagine Cheney taking orders from Haliburton execs? Cheney and Bush aren't oligarchs because oligarch don't have a term of office. Who are the oligarchs? There simply is no oligarchy that can be seen.

You could claim that the oligarchs are well hidden. But that turns your claim into an unprovable conspiracy theory.

You might even claim the oligarchs are well hidden and their methods are so subtle that they don't work through a chain of command like in a real oligarchy but instead they work through influence, bribery and blackmail. But then you don't have real oligarchs any more nor a real oligarchy. You've got a watered down metaphor. You just got powerful players trying their utmost to control the strings of governmental power to benefit their own interests. We've always had players like that. That's why checks and balances are important. That's why we need to be vigilant. But the existence of such players does not constitute an oligarchy. In so far as they might engage in bribery and blackmail, they are criminals. In so far as they don't, they are the people too, albeit often rather selfish ones.

[BrendaQG]

Trish you are a very idealic person. IRL the government is out to protect the interest of a truly privillaged few, old money, white, corporate magnates, at the expense of the masses. Society is a pyramid, always a pyramid and most of us are much closer to the bottom of it.

The only leverage we have is that the mass of us would if pushed too far revolt, perhaps violently.

Knowing you.... as you appear on this board.... you would never agree to this. You are an idealist, and very optimistic.

I look at the world with the eyes of gunnery Sergeant Hartman. you gotta have a warface. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1zGjiqV5cE&feature=related) You gotta have guts. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s9F7p3w9jQ&feature=related) Life is a battlefield.


A cold cruel place set on destroying us without compunction. That can very well include a friendly neighborhood transphobic police man. If a gun helps one to preserve and persevere then by all means have it.

[hippifried]

The pessimist sees the glass half empty.
The optimist sees the glass half full.
The engineer sees a mismatch between the size of the glass & the amount of liquid.

I'm sure there's more of those.


We are the government.
We revolt through the ballot box.
We get a shot at it every 2 years.

If anybody doesn't like the way things are, all they have to do is convince people that they're right. That's the democratic process.

The founders weren't omnicient. The constitution has been amended 27 times. The mechanism for doing so is built in.

We are the government.

[El Nino]

"Its not who votes that counts; its who counts the votes"
Also, the propaganda machine is a tried and true method. Thanks TV!

[El Nino]

Brenda is absolutely, 100%, unequivocally correct, the power structure can be best represented by a pyramid; with emphasis on a very condensed and sharply pointed tip. It's the main logo (Great Seal) on the all our bestowed federal reserve notes.

Truly, the greatest conspiracy of all, is the view that there are no government conspiracies.

Trish, many of your thoughts are not even YOUR OWN.

[trish]

Trish, many of your thoughts are not even YOUR OWN.

Oh my god! How did that happen!!! Oh...right...I read books.

[trish]

The pessimist sees the glass half empty.
The optimist sees the glass half full.
The engineer sees a glass that’s larger than it need be to serve it current function.

It’s not a question of pessimism or optimism. ( I don’t think I painted all that rosy a picture.) It’s simply a question of adherence to a definition. An oligarchy is form of government, not a form of power structure. There is a distinction. If an oligarch wants a tax break, he declares one. He doesn’t have to hire lobbyists to wine and dine lesser souls than himself, such as Congressmen and Senators. Things would be a lot simpler for our would be oligarch if he could get it written into the constitution that he and his friends have direct and absolute command over all branches of government. Then we would indeed have an oligarchy. It doesn’t matter how “pointy” the power pyramid is, as long as our would be oligarchs are compelled to woo our elected officials we’ve got a government by the people.

[Tomfurbs]

Tom sees the glass and says 'Right, who's buying?'

[chefmike]

The only leverage we have is that the mass of us would if pushed too far revolt, perhaps violently. That's absurd. It's the year 2008 and we aren't some banana republic, the only sane options for revolt are the ballot box and the boycott, among other things...although Timothy McVeigh certainly agreed with your sentiments, Brenda. Lots of luck with that, though!

[chefmike]

Trish, many of your thoughts are not even YOUR OWN.

Oh my god! How did that happen!!! Oh...right...I read books.

Is that jackass still braying, trish? SMDH...

[chefmike]

Truly, the greatest conspiracy of all, is the view that there are no government conspiracies.

Trish, many of your thoughts are not even YOUR OWN. No, that would be you, El Nino. You and the rest of the infowars tinfoil hat crowd are perfect examples of cult-like behavior. Jim Jones would have loved you for the same reason that Alex Jones does now. Keep drinking that kool-aid...

[El Nino]

Who's the one on the kool-aid Chef?
This one is for you and Trish
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=19zyIG89piI

[hippifried]

Oh no! Everybody's brainwashed but me!