Printable View
What makes you think that the final sentence was directed at you? You injected yourself into a debate I was having with another poster.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
Your insults fall short slick, I didn't see you in Panama, the Gulf, the Mog or Bosnia.
Just another blow hard internet toughguy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
History repeats itself. You grow up
Maybe, it's all a matter of "pressures".Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
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
Hi Brenda,
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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."
LMAO Well, I hope all your personal firearms make you feel 'safer' :roll:
I can totally relate to this point. Why, my house was under a dual Trebuchet and Elephant attack only last week!Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
Those big-eared bastards shit all over the damn place!
:-| :-| :-|
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.
Awww yeah!
Yeah, right. Look out for Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She wants to de-claw the populace and establish a totalitarian government. :lol:Quote:
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.
Laugh it all away Trish
So Brenda ..is your soon to be purchased handgun gonna make you feel safer?
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...
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.
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 !
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli
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.
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.
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'.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Yeah, those were the good old days....NOT!Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.)
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.?
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.
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"
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?
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.
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.
ehhhhhhhh, WRONG....Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
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.
You need to read and UNDERSTAND the 10th ammendment. I'm sure you are capable of the former, but I seriously doubt the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
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.Quote:
That is what true freedom is all about. Those are the principles that this nation was founded on.
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"?Quote:
You need to read and UNDERSTAND the 10th ammendment. I'm sure you are capable of the former, but I seriously doubt the latter.
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.
You should bring fact, not supposition to back up your argument. And the facts do not back you up.Quote:
Originally Posted by zippylongorgan
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/p...007release.pdf
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimere...6/cit06ch2.pdf
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Cri...t/fa_index.asp
http://stats.doj.ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof05/00/1.htm
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.