Printable View
Read the 10 ammendmentQuote:
Originally Posted by scroller
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
[quote=iloveshemales77]And you don't think that this modern government is MORE dangerous to peoples rights now???Quote:
Originally Posted by "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
Goot reference, you knoe the German government in the 20 specifically disarmed the civilian population, the result was uncle adolf.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
Also after an australian gun ban went into effect, home invasions went through the roof there!
Great minds think alikeQuote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
what are you smoking? "The People" ALWAYS refers to individuals. As I stated earlier, read the 10th ammendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Again your uninformed nature shine through.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
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)
Don't forget that this is the SAME court the republicans bashed all last week on their gitmo / detainee ruling.....Quote:
Originally Posted by dbev
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 ...
.....
This statement is not born out by the statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by cockgobbler
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-v...ime/gun-crime/
That's not what Amnesty said.Quote:
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.
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/ame...jamaica#report
People can make statistics back up almost any point of view, but only if the data is factual to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by kimjongil
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.
But you still take the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
: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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hondarobot
Whatever. Put me on your payroll so I can get rich and impress Vicki Richter. That's all I'm really concerned about.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
:wink:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hondarobot
Money doesn't impress her, mate! Only humour and class ....Quote:
Originally Posted by hondarobot
Too late it's all in dollars :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by arepa01
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!
I'll keep working on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
:?
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli
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/new...cle2317307.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/edito...RICAN_GUNS.asp
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
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.
Paladin writes: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.Quote:
what are you smoking? "The People" ALWAYS refers to individuals. As I stated earlier, read the 10th ammendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli
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?Quote:
This Amendment does not “grant” any rights. It guarantees a “right of the people” that already exists.
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”.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by phosepete
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.
Like thermonuclear ICBM's? Perhaps a suitcase nuke or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
Get real Brenda, your sarcasm and the loftiness of that statement is ludicrous.
Where's the link? Cherry picking the parts that fit your argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
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.
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!
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.
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