|
|
|
Neph's POLITE Gun Debate
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. November 2007 @ 04:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Sophocles:
The United States is one of a few nations in the industrialized world that has no gun control laws.
Originally posted by PacMan777:
From that statement I see a lack of knowledge about gun control or the laws of the land.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
It's statements like the one above that take it to a personal level. It is condescending assumes knowledge about me that you aren't in possession of.
I don't know why you want to try to keep saying I'm being personal. You put me in possession of the knowledge when you said, "The United States is one of a few nations in the industrialized world that has no gun control laws." When the United States has Federal and state gun control laws in effect and you say there are none, it's easy to say you're not fully knowledgable on the subject you're trying to debate.
Often law breakers are tried in state courts and Federal laws don't come into play. When Federal sentencing mandates are followed, the sentences are often more severe than state sentencing. Any way it goes, there are laws in effect. Getting into a discussion on changing laws leads to politics and that's a forbidden subject at AD. Sadly in the US the issue of gun ownership is used as a political pawn instead of being dealt with according to law.
As I mentioned before, we bring our bias to the discussion. That's a point you noted as well. I admit, I'm pro-gun. However, I've done the research and taken training to carry a firearm responsibly.
Saying there are no laws prove you lacked knowledge of their existence. I'm only going by what you said. In your last post you refer to the laws and say they're vague with loopholes. You posted a short synopsis of the laws. If you want to quote the laws, use material from this link, you'll find it complete. http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2000_ref.htm Also, where are the loopholes? You should have pointed some out for us. Plus there's plenty of case precedent if a prosecutor needs it. The one thing we do agree on is the need for better enforcement and sentencing befitting the crimes. The problem is you have a bunch of the liberal judges who would like to see guns banned, but don't think the culprits should spend serious jail time.
Just because you can go out and buy a gun today doesn't make it legal. Plus there are laws covering the purchase of firearms from individuals. As has been said, it comes down to responsibly following the laws and government agencies enforcing the laws.
Since you keep saying I'm being personal, I'll consider our discussion closed. My advice, instead of googling for points, do the research. Talk to some real gun owners instead of looking for horror stories that play to the anti-gun movement. You'll find there are responsible gun owners like myself who want to see current gun laws enforced, but not have guns banned. It's your right not to own a gun, as it was your Father's right to own his. I just ask the same consderation when it comes to my rights.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. November 2007 @ 04:44
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
30. November 2007 @ 01:56 |
Link to this message
|
Those "sources" are laughable not only because all are conducted or funded by the gun control lobby, but also because most of them have been thoroughly debunked. I could cite 10 times as many studies from the NRA, but, unlike gun control advocacy groups, nearly all independent research suggests that gun control, at best, does nothing, and at worst, sharply increases violent crime.
Probably the most relevant study is the International Crime Victimization Survey. This is the 800# gorilla of international crime comparisons. Guess what? The industrialized nations with stricter gun control, with the sole exception of Japan, have both higher violent and overall crime rates. Guess which has the lowest? Switzerland, which mandates gun ownership. And not just piss-ant semiautomatics and handguns; Switzerland requires every household to have an operation fully-automatic battle rifle, and ammunition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...23/ncrim123.xml
It's worth noting that the ICVS isn't conducted by some pro-gun group in the U.S., by by Leiden University in Holland. Not exactly gun-friendly. Nor does it specifically examine the effects of gun laws. However, if you look at the rankings, the countries with stricter gun control laws lead the industrialized world in violent and total crime. Of particular note, England/Wales and Australia are the top two (and have frequently traded spots at #1 several times over the last few years), and have some of the most draconian gun control laws on the planet. It's also worth noting (although this was not specifically cited in the ICVS), that both nation's violent crime rates surged immediately after they passed their sweeping gun bans in 1996 and 1997, respectively.
The supposed "43-times-more-likely" study you cited has been so thoroughly debunked that even most gun control groups have silently walked away from that one. It was not done in the 90's as you suggest, it was conducted in 1986 by a lead researcher by the name of Dr. Arthur Kellerman. But Kellerman refused to release his data and most of his methodology. In science and academia, that's tantamount to fraud; if one will not release the methods by which he or she obtains a result, then others cannot duplicate those data or methods to test their validity. In other words, there's no way to verify whether or not the results were completely made-up, or whether the researcher used valid methods. This is fundamental to the scientific method. Kellerman clearly did not: what little is known of his methodology is that he analyzed three counties in Washington State, specifically chosed because they have high alcohol and drug abuse rates. But he did not explain his methodology any further and, more important, never released the data from which he obtained his findings.
That situation became so bad that, last time I checked, most gun control groups are now only claiming a "3-times-more likely" or even less, although even that is flawed.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ddaDbEI...VSKnACV6DTETmFg
In reality, the opposite appears to be true: A gun is about 20 times more likely to save a life than to take one. Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State Univ., studied reports of DGUs (defensive gun uses) by citizens in the mid-90's, and found there were about 2.5 million such defensive uses a year. Of those, about 400,000 are believed to involve a life-threatening situation (based on statements the attacker made, or prior histories e.g. abusive spouses with violent histories.)
Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Aldine Transcation, 1997
http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Fir...96403620&sr=1-5
The most fascinating thing about the Kleck study - and, by the way, he DID release his data and methodology, unlike most pro-gun-control researchers - is that several pro-gun-control researchers tried to debunk his study, and found far more annual Defensive Gun Uses. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig found 3.1 million such uses as reported to a major gun-control lobbying group (their full study showed closer to 4.7 million, although they apparently retracted their formal study in favor of the lesser total; Kleck had, among other things, discounted multiple defensive gun uses by the same individual.)
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
It's also worth noting Kleck's own biases and leanings: He is a self-described liberal, "card-carrying member of the ACLU" (which has traditionally been hostile to the Second Amendment, though they are quite friendly towards murderers and child molesters). Simply put, Kleck is not exactly an NRA poster child.
The dterrent effect of gun ownership has long been documented: In 1983, Tulane researchers James D. Wright and Peter Rossi (also self-proclaimed supporters of gun control, at least initially) found that convicted felons were FAR more likely to have been deterred from committing a crime because of the fear of a potential victim being armed with a gun, as opposed to fear of arrest, jail, etc.. (Side note, much of this reaearch went on between the late seventies and 1981.)
Wright, James D., etal., "Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Social Institutions and Social Change)", Aldine DeGruyter, 1986
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0...ependenceinstA/
They have done some follow-ups which affirm this, and Wright has published several of these updated studies.
Then, of course, there are the John Lott studies, which you may have heard of, that show distinct drops in violence in those states with "shall issue" carry laws.
Lott, John, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (2nd Ed.), University Of Chicago Press, 2000
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Cri...96403898&sr=1-2
Bottom line is, the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence suggests that more gun restrictions equals more violent crime, whether here or abroard. It's gotten to the point where even many pro-gun-control researchers are jumping ship. Moreover, the anecdotal evidence points to the fact that more gun controls inevitably lead to more violence: witness Washtington D.C., which enacted some of the most draconian gun control laws in the world in 1976 (not only were handguns prohibited, but even long-guns [rifles and shotguns] were required to be stored in a non-functional state. I'm not aware of any place where even long guns are essentially banned, even Japan). And what was the result? D.C. was historically the murder capital of the U.S. (and the industrialized world). Chicago, which also outlawed handguns (though not rifles and shotguns) in 1982, has been a close second. Indeed, most Dillon's Rule cities with their own gun restrictions tend to have sharply higher violence and murder rates than average.
While I have been trying to adhere to the ideal that this is supposed to be a "polite" debate, and I don't want to attack anyone personally, it is beyond stupidity to suggest that the U.S. has "no" gun control laws. We have some of the strictest in the world. We have over 20,000. The real problem is that we DO have them at all.
Another point to mention is the fact that, if guns genuinely made life more dangerous - if it were really that "guns were designed to kill", then cops should suffer by far the highest murder and suicide rates of any segment of society. They don't, however, despite a variety of societal problems being endemic in that profession. Moreover, it would be extremely difficult if not outright impossible to justify our government to send people out on our streets, using our taxpayer dollars, who are carrying "guns that were designed to kill". That would not stand the test of societal and ethical sensitivities, let alone the legal liability problems: There would be no defense if that were the case.
Finally, it's worth mentioning, as others have, that police only respond to crime. They do not usually immediately prevent it. Practically-speaking, unless you have an armed police officer living in your household, there is no way to interdict crime, only respond to it. Unless you have a the equivalent of an armed police officer in your household: a citizen with a gun.
-Do you believe you own your computer and shouldn't be told what you can run and do? Then say *NO* to Microsoft Vista!
-Since half the questions here involve media problems, here ya go: Only use Verbatim or Taiyo-Yuden discs (get your TYs from Rima.com, not Supermediastore or meritline). Forget the rest, no matter what "brand" they sell under. Always burn at 4x speed regardless of the speed rating of this discs or your drive. If you have burn problems with these then you have to update your drive's firmware. For double-layer discs, only use Verbatim DVD+R DL and burn them at 2.4x speed.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. November 2007 @ 03:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
^^^^^^good stuff Dunker.... ;)
....gm
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. December 2007 @ 00:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Was talking with a friend of mine tonight and he told me an interesting story about guns.
He and his room mate a couple of years ago were living in a neighborhood with a few "crackheads" as neighbors. The "indigents" would always look at them like we can score some cash or merchandise from them and even heckle them at times.
The guys decided to load there truck up with the guns they had in the house because they were going hunting anyway and thought that they would just load ALL there firearms up. (which no one knew about) They did so one at a time and about on the 6th or 8th trip to the truck the "crackheads" across the street were staring with eyes bulging. lol. Well anyway word got around that the 2 guys had many firearms/weapons stored somewhere in the house and NO ONE ever bothered them after that. It makes me want to look into owning a few firearms again just for that sake. lol.
I'm on the page that the enforcers of the law should make the laws we have now work before they add more that protect no one but the honest citizen from protecting themselves from the very "criminals" that we need to keep the guns from.
NOT very eloquent I know but I think you get the meaning of my post. :)
....gm
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. December 2007 @ 01:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
The message was clear and one I agree with. I'm surprised when word got around about all those guns that thieves didn't try to steal them. That's one of the problems of gun ownership, if you can't keep them with you all the time.
When I used to have more nice guns than I do now, I bought a safe to slow thieves down and to keep the guns stored safely away from children or anyone else that shouldn't be handling them. This isn't a gun locker but one of those big heavy jobs. If they cut the hinges off, the door is still held in by large pins inside the steel walls. It wouldn't stop a real safe cracker, but they wouldn't waste their skills at my house anyway. The safe is worth more now than what I keep in it. LOL
The safe is so heavy the seller loads them using a forklift. It took 3 big men to move the thing in place at my home. It broke a dolly rated at 1000 lbs. Unless a gang breaks in, I should be able to easily track a thief who carries my safe away. All I'll need to do is check the clinics to see who checked in with a hernia. ;)
Greensman
Most people have kids in their home from time to time, even if they don't have children of their own. I recommend at least a gun locker to store firearms. A good gun safe is even better. It's too easy to forget those little locks on the gun and kids have a habit of finding keys, if you don't carry them at all times. Gun cases are more for exhibition than safe storage. Don't be lulled into thinking a gun is safely stored when in one of those.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. December 2007 @ 01:39
|
Senior Member
|
3. December 2007 @ 06:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
As far as gun safety and kids go, I make sure that the bolts and or trigger groups are dissassembled and stored in a different area of my house, the gun locks are in place on the trigger housing. The ammo is stored away from the firearm components. My wakeup call came when a friend of mine from Arizona told me the story how his oldest son (Age 6 or so at the time) somehow managed to get ahold of his loaded service weapon and bring it down to shoot this huge bug in the backyard that was scaring the whooha out of his mom. It was stored on an overhead beam in his bedroom, well out of reach of his kids he assumed. Fortunately no one was injured, except my buddy learned how to get comfortable on the couch for a while.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. December 2007 @ 12:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
blivet
If it works for you, good. Children have a habit of finding everything in a house though. Remember the story about the "bug". The locks are about as safe as where you keep the keys. Can a child remove the locks with tools you have around the home, garage, or workshop? How about his little buddy's house where the dad has all those nice shop tools? Drill press anyone? I know it's extreme, but children are unpredictable. That's why there's all those accidental deaths.
|
Senior Member
|
3. December 2007 @ 17:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree with you on the safe, the best place to keep them in, but for those of us without them, we have to be much more creative. Besides. my kids are not home alone nor would they be able to find the keys. My weapons are not really here for home defense, but if they were would need to rethink the method of protecting them from curious kids. Having all girls is a plus in this case, would be much different if they were boys.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. December 2007 @ 22:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Here's a good one for you. My dad made the mistake of not hiding his handgun once when I was a little boy. My two older sisters got their hands on it and were checking it out. Luckily they only shot a hole in the ceiling instead of a family member. Needless to say no more handguns were left where the kids could get them. Girls can get into as much as boys, they're just cuter and can get away with more. LOL
For my CC automatic I've got a steel lockbox with a pushbutton combination system so I can access it quickly. For when the batteries run down there's a key, which I keep in the safe. The lock box can be bolted to a permanent fixture or uses a steel cable for attachment. It's a lot safer than a gun lock and allows faster access.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
3. December 2007 @ 23:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you look on youtube it shows you how unsafe normal gun locks are, so it's a good thing you don't use them.
|
Senior Member
|
6. December 2007 @ 21:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Dick's has gun cabinets from time-to-time for about $99 which can hold 10 longguns. While certainly not as secure as a safe, they are much safer than gunlocks. You don't necessarily have to buy a $2000 fireproof safe for security. A lot of people seem to think they do, so they never get around to buying one. Several of my best friends are in law enforcement, and most do not have even a gun cabinet because they think the big safe is the way to go, but it remains on their "to-do" list for years because of the cost. All of them own at least 5 guns if not more, and, when you think about it, the cabinet is probably cheaper than the cost of 6 or 7 gun locks.
-Do you believe you own your computer and shouldn't be told what you can run and do? Then say *NO* to Microsoft Vista!
-Since half the questions here involve media problems, here ya go: Only use Verbatim or Taiyo-Yuden discs (get your TYs from Rima.com, not Supermediastore or meritline). Forget the rest, no matter what "brand" they sell under. Always burn at 4x speed regardless of the speed rating of this discs or your drive. If you have burn problems with these then you have to update your drive's firmware. For double-layer discs, only use Verbatim DVD+R DL and burn them at 2.4x speed.
|
Senior Member
|
7. December 2007 @ 08:03 |
Link to this message
|
1 Free Men own guns slaves do not !
2. Gun laws or any law are only as good as the Law abiding citizens who Obey them ! Criminals by definition are law breakers so they don't obey gun laws or any others for that matter!
3. Gun control in my book means hitting what you aim at Period!!!
4. If you love being oppressed , conquered and subdued turn in your gun and bend over ( Or Just Vote for Hillary !!!!!!!!!!!!!.
5. it does'nt take an awful lot for society to collapse !!! think Hurricane Katrina -Rita !!!! Looting , Rape , Robbery ,Mayhem ect... or the L.A Riots '
6. if your anti-gun or just scared all the time Marry a Cop and leave me alone !!!!!!!!!!!.
7. Those who beat their Swords into plowshares will Plow for those who don't !!!.
8. Liberals always through up Europe as a Model for America as many European countries have Gun control - If you like Europe so much take your self there MOve !!!!- I like Europe Too -Switzerland Never been Conquered - Beautiful Women , Neutral , If your in their version of the Ready Reserves / National Guard ? when you come off of drill /manuevers you bring your Weapon issue home ( Sig Assualt Rifle ,Machine gun ect...) and they have a very low crime rate! Now we could debate the Full auto issue but They do atleast trust their citizens . Yet even they (Switzerland) Have Succumbed to the evils of Gun Control awhile back ! They passed a Law stating that you are allowed only 25000 Rounds ( cartridges ) for each firearm you own Per year!!!.I suppose I could live with that but it would hurt competive shooters who burn through thousands of rounds in practice !
9.IF you Like Gun control, Socialized medicine , limited or no freedoms, low or No wages , oppresion and strife ,no religous freedom , and Hate America or The U.S.A then Move somewhere Else . Make room for a Legal immigrant or other American that likes it here the way it is ! 10. if you disagree with me that's okay that's your Privilege ! just as it's mine to not agree with you !
10. Peace ! Through Superior Firepower !!!!!!!!!!! ( No Just Peace period ) Peace Out !!!!!!!!!!
FeetZ Up ! Head Down !
|
Senior Member
|
7. December 2007 @ 22:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Amen brother Big, Amen.
(bet you didn't learn that in the bottom of a dumpster.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. December 2007 @ 01:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
BIGTOXY69 ,I can't find ANYTHING I disagree with there
Antec 1200 Full-Tower Case/Thermaltake 750-Watt PS/ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 Mobo/Western Digital Black WD500 500GB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache/NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTX 384-bit GDDR3 PCI Express Video Card/CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 16GB DDR3 /Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo)/CORSAIR Hydro High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler/3-Asus DRW-24B1ST Sata Drives/Samsung 2493HM 24" LCD Monitior 1920x1200 resolution,5ms respone time/OS Windows 10 Pro SP1 64-bit
|
|
Northax
Newbie
|
25. December 2007 @ 23:20 |
Link to this message
|
I'll show you the best reason against gun bans from the masses of citizenry:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
That, right there, is the #1 reason! Thomas Jefferson, if memory is correct, was one who helped form the current Bill of Rights found in our Constitution today. So, I think I'll go on his interpretation of why the 2nd Amendment was given to us. :)
And, the founding fathers of this nation (U.S.A.) knew it through personal experience. They were all citizens that literally had to fight a war against their domestic government of the time: The King of Great Britain! And his military!
The founding fathers literally, and technically "broke" the written law of their day, by declaring independence from Great Britain; because, what they fought for, was a higher law: liberty and freedom endowed by our Creator.
Anyone who argues against citizens having arms as individuals in mass, is, therefore, not thinking clearly! Since, if they were time-warped back to the late 1770s, and declared this to be law, then the free, United States of America, would literally not be here right now! That's a fact!
Citizens used firearms, those which each and every other military had at their time! Thus, in context of the 2nd Amendment, each sane, non-criminal citizen of the U.S. should have the right to bear that of what our current military possess: automatic assault rifles! Such as the M-16 and M-4, etc.
Of course, you can leave the missiles, jets, bombs, etc. to each States' security force (State guards). :)
The 2nd Amendment is clearly in the context of protecting each sane, non-criminal citizen of the United States of America, to keep and bear arms, literally, to protect against tyrannical domestic government! That is a fact.
Now, the protection against private criminals, just goes without saying. Crime can rise or drop, but that affects the 2nd Amendment not one bit, since it wasn't written to simply be dependant upon crime rates!
We have a certain criminal much worse than private criminals, which many complacent Americans (those that're for banning guns) today do not think about: Tyrannical government!
Again, this nation is here, with the liberties it has shown we have the right to have, solely because private citizens had to take it by force, from their domestic government, back in the late 1700s.
Many take this for granted, and it most likely doesn't even have a mere chance of entering these peoples' (those that want to ban guns) minds!
Do not be surprised if government has suppressed certain information, or has paid the media to do such a thing, in order to get people as a whole to ban guns. This is nothing new, nor is it anything surprising, if one looks at how corrupt any government can be, during the written history of mankind.
Just the other day, I was looking at news sources talking about the church shooting in Colorado (U.S.), and to my amazement, I saw one news website, from Australia, purposely leave out an important fact in the church shooting: A private citizen was armed in church, took out her gun, and shot the madman, whom was about to murder hundreds of people!
Why'd they leave this fact out? Simply and obviously put: They didn't want to shed any positive light on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms!
Amazing, right? I say it is, indeed! :)
Here's the link to the Australian website that refused to speak of the important fact: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22898531-23109,00.html
Here's a link to another news website that spoke the truth (you can do your own search, and find many more): http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/20...d-guards-order/
A quote from the second link:
Quote:
COLORADO SPRINGS ? The gunman who killed two at a Colorado Springs church Sunday refused a guards order to drop his weapon and fired before the guard shot him to death and ended the attack.
The guard, a member of the New Life Church who provides security as a volunteer, was called a hero by church officials today.
"She's the hero," Senior Pastor Brady Boyd said. "She saved 100 lives yesterday."
Michael Ware, pastor of Victory Church in Westminster and a New Life overseer, said the security guard is a small woman, "110 pounds dripping wet."
Relating the account he had been told, Ware said the woman ordered Matthew Murray to drop his weapon and they exchanged shots. The attacker shot at the guard, missed, and kept walking into the church, Ware said. The woman fired again, taking down the gunman.
Here are some other good quotes about how guns should be in citizens' hands, to protect them from corrupt government. Some might surprise you:
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. - George Washington
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota) "Guns Magazine - Feb. 1960, Page 4
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi in "Gandhi, An Autobiography"
"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
- Noah Webster, 1888
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them...the weak will become a prey to the strong." - Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." - Richard Henry Lee, 1787
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." - John Adams, 1788
"...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton
"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court, 1803
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." - James Burgh, 1774
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out just because I might yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater." - Peter Venetoklis
"Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants." - Unknown
"The danger to a free society is not the guns owned by the citizens but an unconstrained government.... An armed society is a self-governing society, just as a disarmed people are vulnerable to arbitrary power of every kind." - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
"What a crazy world we live in! Trying to treat addiction as a legal problem, and trying to treat criminal misbehaviors using guns as a medical problem! Beam me up, Scotty. Ain't no intelligent life down here." - Julie Cochrane
"Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces." - Joseph T. Chew, "Usenet posting in talk.politics.guns"
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" - Patrick Henry
-
Now, let's see who most assuredly agrees with those today that want guns banned from citizens' hands, en masse:
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler
"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 peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. ... So let's not have any native militia..." - Adolph Hitler
-
Now, we see who actually agrees with those that want to ban guns today, huh? Scary, isn't it?
Notice how Hitler didn't want a native militia, because it'd be too much to handle, in his taking over the population of citizens, unjustly?
Now, notice how the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution brings up "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." ? See what I'm talking about? Those that founded the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment, specifically, knew that an armed citizenry is one of the highest ways to help keep liberty in a free society.
So, all armed Americans, I urge you to come together, and form well regulated militias in your States, so as to protect against corrupt government. We need this! And, also, since we're in the 'age of terrorism', it's just one more safe guard against said terrorists! :)
-
Anyone trying to argue on a crime-based opinion?
Well... Switzerland has all of their males carrying assault rifles! Yes, you'll say they were trained! I know! But this is more proof, showing that guns themselves, in the hands of citizens, do not automatically cause unjust death in a nation! That's up to society, and should be dealt with on that level! But not on a level of banning guns from law-abiding citizens!
There's a place in Georgia (a State in the U.S.) that literally made it law for every household to HAVE guns in them! Did the crime rate soar to new heights? Nope. It actually dropped! I'd bet it'd drop even further, if every single citizen in that town actually carried concealed handguns on them, 24/7. :)
In Orlando Florida (in the U.S.), 2500 women trained and carried firearms concealed, and the rape rate went down by 83%! Now, isn't that astounding?
Imagine if every woman in the U.S. trained with firearms, and carried them concealed? Rape would drop to all new lows, I'm betting my house on that.
With that said...
Go read this article, which is pretty good, as well:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=975&full=1
Again, last word:
Whether crime rises or lowers, for strict gun control, or a lack thereof? It matters not. The reason we have our [American] right to bear arms, is to protect against corrupt domestic government.
Keep that in mind, people. Never forget it! EVER!
Many have died to give you that right, so let's not make their sacrifice in vain!
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
www.ronpaul2008.com
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. December 2007 @ 23:34
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. December 2007 @ 00:52 |
Link to this message
|
Though I'm for gun ownership, I still believe in some limitations. If the military can no longer protect us, then automatic weapons may be called for. Until that looks imminent, let's leave the automatic weapons to the military (including our National Guard) along with the other weapons of war.
I agree with having more trained gun owners. There's far too many untrained gun owners. Simply being able to pick a firearm up and pull the trigger doesn't mean a trained owner. Knowing under what conditions deadly force can be used along with the safe use of a firearm should be taught to each adult citizen. In hunting the young hunters have to take a safety course in many states. I think the adults should be required to do the same. Seems more adult hunters shoot other hunters than the kids do.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. December 2007 @ 00:55
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. December 2007 @ 04:12 |
Link to this message
|
There are very few things that I would agree with Mao Zedong, but this is it
"Power comes from the barrel of a gun"
free people are powerless without a gun, while oppressors should be without.
Roy Innis, former chairman of the congress of racial equality, and a great American of African descent, when asked by the late Peter Jennings of ABC network news "Why are guns so easy to get in the US?"
R. Innis' answer was " Peter, guns are too easy to get by criminals, but far too difficult to get by honest, decent people like you and I"
Then asked about his brothers and sisters in prison, Innis' reply was "Peter, I have NO brothers and sisters in prison, BUT all good,decent, law abiding people, whether black,white brown, yellow or green-- they are my brothers and sisters"
My point, police cannot protect all of us all the time. A government that cannot trust honest citizens to posess firearms is a government that itself cannot be trusted ( Re Mao Zedong)
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition
 |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. December 2007 @ 04:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am also paraphrasing poorly, but it goes something like this:
" Today we have total gun registration, we will have safer streets, a safer society and lead the world into the future ( or tomorow ).
Adolph Hitler 1934
This may be the greatest reason why we need to arm ourselves ( no I am not talking about nukes )
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. December 2007 @ 06:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
If a group of the populace decides they don't like a new law, today there isn't likely to be an armed insurrection in the US . Our greatest weapon is the free press and our political system. Though neither are perfect, they get things right more often than not. Support organizations like the NRA and leaders who share and support our point of view. Wild rhetoric and suggestions harm the cause more than help it. If we get a total gun ban during my lifetime, I hope they catch the thieves who stole all my guns.
|
|
Northax
Newbie
|
26. December 2007 @ 12:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by PacMan777:
Though I'm for gun ownership, I still believe in some limitations. If the military can no longer protect us, then automatic weapons may be called for. Until that looks imminent, let's leave the automatic weapons to the military (including our National Guard) along with the other weapons of war.
I agree with having more trained gun owners. There's far too many untrained gun owners. Simply being able to pick a firearm up and pull the trigger doesn't mean a trained owner. Knowing under what conditions deadly force can be used along with the safe use of a firearm should be taught to each adult citizen. In hunting the young hunters have to take a safety course in many states. I think the adults should be required to do the same. Seems more adult hunters shoot other hunters than the kids do.
PacMan, I don't know if you read my whole post thoroughly (?), but having automatic weapons in citizens' hands (trained, and good law-abiding citizens, that is...) would protect against domestic military, that is run by a corrupt government. This is exactly what the founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) was talking about, when they put forth the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Again, reading the Bill of Rights in literal context, you'll see that it is to protect the people from corrupt domestic government. That includes, above all else, the military controlled by such corrupt domestic government.
What do you think the Revolutionary War was all about? Fighting against foreign military? Nope. It was fighting domestic government military! That is why we declared independence! Not simply fought off a foreign invasion.
We've got to get this "the military is for our protection" out of our heads, because even though that's technically true on one side of the coin, in that they protect us from foreign invasion; on the other side of the coin, they can be turned against us by a corrupt domestic government! And when you want your assault rifle, it'll be too late, since they'll ban them from your hands, and take over!
Back when they (the founding fathers) had their firearms, they were on par with other military firearms; so, I only know it logical that citizens today have that same right, in the true context of the 2nd Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson even said that "...every citizen should become a soldier."
A soldier to fight for government? Nope. A soldier to fight for the people, if liberty were ever endangered by their domestic government. Now, if people read Thomas Jeffersons' quotes, they'd then realize why the 2nd Amendment says "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."
Thomas Jefferson [among others] wanted to ensure our liberties, not only by ink and paper found in the Bill of Rights (corrupt governments don't give a rats rear end about ink on paper, no matter what it says...), but by force of arms (guns) in the private citizens' hands. This is a clear and total fact.
I say leave the missiles, jets, etc. to the State Guard (which is controlled by our specific State, not federal government), so as to solely help protect the people who live in our State alone, from the federal government.
State Guard is for further protection against a corrupt federal government, but what's to protect citizens against a corrupt State or city government? Our firearms, as well, of course! :)
See, it's a layered defense. There's a backup plan for all of these things, if it ever came down to it. Or so it should be like this. The people today need to arm themselves much more than they are now. We need to gather together, and train one another, become competent in warfare tactics, etc. This is also to help protect against terrorists, as well, by the way.
This is exactly the independent mindset that Thomas Jefferson wanted the American citizens to have. He didn't want citizens to rely solely on "big daddy government" for protection. No freakin' way! That'd be heresy in his mind, and rightly so.
Here in Virginia, I am allowed to buy an assault rifle already, one with a clip that holds 20 bullets and under. When I have a concealed carry permit, I can get one with more.
I know, many might read what I was saying here, and my first post, as some kind of "hint" to supposedly overthrow the current government. That'd be totally incorrect! And just want to assure everyone, that I am not talking about such a thing. :)
I am, however, a very cautious person, and so was Thomas Jefferson! I like being prepared for worst case scenarios. Some call it paranoia (it's not), that is, until a worst case scenario happens to them! And by then, it's too late for them to learn a lesson and live. They learn it, then die, and then no one is there to see how they wished that they did what the other "paranoid" people did, in preparing for the worst!
Sad, isn't it?
Words of wisdom:
"A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
-
I like learning from history, not repeating it! I hope all others heed this warning, before it's too late.
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
www.ronpaul2008.com
|
|
Northax
Newbie
|
26. December 2007 @ 13:46 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by PacMan777:
If a group of the populace decides they don't like a new law, today there isn't likely to be an armed insurrection in the US . Our greatest weapon is the free press and our political system. Though neither are perfect, they get things right more often than not. Support organizations like the NRA and leaders who share and support our point of view. Wild rhetoric and suggestions harm the cause more than help it. If we get a total gun ban during my lifetime, I hope they catch the thieves who stole all my guns.
Of course. If people don't like a new law, then they get up and peacefully protest it! That's our 1st Amendment right to do so!
I'm not talking about overthrowing a government, just because they pass a bad law. lol! Whoever is saying that, please let me know, so I can maybe talk some sense into him. :)
A well-armed citizenry is simply a last resort against a tyrannical domestic government. That's all. But, I see a lack of that well-armed citizenry today, and it kind of worries me.
It also worries me that people are becoming too complacent, and not protesting, when government passes bad laws, or oversteps its boundaries.
I was reading about how a judge in Niagra, NY, threw 46 people in jail, simply because someones cellphone rang out in the courtroom, and no one came forward when he demanded so. All 46 people in jail, for someones mistake? That right there was the breaking of their 8th Amendment right, which states that no cruel and unusual punishments shall be given.
Here's the link: http://my.earthlink.net/article/str?guid...1127-1431302246
Did the people prostest? Not that I know of. Was this judge thrown in jail for his literal crime against the U.S. Constitution? Nope. He was merely taken down from his position as judge, by the commision.
Now, if people remain complacent when government breaks the law, and only rely upon government to punish other government, then liberty is on its way to a slow death in this nation.
Relying upon government to punish government, is the same idiocy as relying upon one Nazi to punish another Nazi for killing a Jew. Insane, right? I'd say so!
We need to wake the heck up!
So, voting politicians into office and reading what the press says (which can leave out important truths, and/or be paid by the government, itself) cannot be relied upon. The people themselves, must be extremely pro-active, and extremely skeptical of the government. Then, we'll see protests all the time, whenever government oversteps its boundaries! That's how it should be. And that's how liberty is held in a free society.
Some more good wisdom:
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress."
- Frederick Douglas
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
www.ronpaul2008.com
|
Senior Member
|
26. December 2007 @ 20:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
"A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
-
I like learning from history, not repeating it! I hope all others heed this warning, before it's too late.
I see someone has studied George Orwell and learned valuable insight. I applaud your opinion and your words of wisdom.
A government should fear its people, versus the people fearing its government.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. December 2007 @ 11:12 |
Link to this message
|
Northax
I read what you had to say. And as I said, I think automatic weapons in the hands of average citizens aren't needed at this point. Fully automatic weapons are controlled in this country for good reason. Due to penalties few criminals opt to use them. A license can be had to own the weapons, if you don't mind Big Brother probing all your orifices. As for the armed citizenry, unless just a few have all those guns, the US citizens are a well armed group.
I notice even in your post you didn't see fit to arm the citizens with all the weapons available to the military.
Quote:
Of course, you can leave the missiles, jets, bombs, etc. to each States' security force (State guards).
I simply consider automatic weapons among the extreme weapons that shouldn't be readily available. I guess we all have our own opinions where the lines should be drawn. Using your example of teleporting to colonial days: The British and Colonial armies were armed with single shot, muzzle loading rifles. Cannons were the "big" guns. Modern technology has changed the playing field. Though in a package similar to semi-automatic weapons, I still consider automatic weapons one of the "big guns" for warfare.
Posse Comitatus generally prohibits US military personnel from directly engaging in law enforcement. It's the "State Guards" the citizenry has to have second thoughts about. Misuse such as Kent State and against peaceful civil rights protests readily come to mind. Still that doesn't call for arming up with automatic weapons. It's more a call to take a closer look at elected officials who are placed in command of such forces.
You don't have to repeat quotes from Jefferson to make your point with me. As far as the Constitution goes, I'm a strict constructionist in the true sense. Quotes from Hitler are sometimes thought provoking. The guy was as evil as they come. Some things he said appeared philanthropic, but his actions always proved otherwise. His registration of arms in order to seize them appear different than current registration in the US. I suspect if seizure started, there would be a rash of gun thefts. I would make it a point to accidentally leave my gun safe unlocked. Hopefully we will never see a military dictator running this country. So far the safeguards written into the Constitution by our forefathers have prevented abuses more than arming citizens with automatic weapons.
|
|
Northax
Newbie
|
27. December 2007 @ 12:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The British and Colonial armies were armed with single shot, muzzle loading rifles. Cannons were the "big" guns. Modern technology has changed the playing field. Though in a package similar to semi-automatic weapons, I still consider automatic weapons one of the "big guns" for warfare.
The single shot, muzzle loading rifle back in the 1700s was the equivalent of automatic assault rifle we see today. Just because the automatic assault rifle today is obviously more deadly, doesn't mean citizens should be barred from having them, as long as they're well-trained, and law-abiding citizens.
The rifle back in the 1700s was a lot more dangerous than simply a sword, but that didn't make the founding fathers think "Whoa! This rifle is too much firepower, and makes sniping from long range much too easy to slaughter others with, for the everyday citizen. Let them just have swords!"
Nope.
They (Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers of this nation) literally wanted citizens to carry the exact same main gun that their current military was carrying, solely because it gives the private citizens an equal stance against such military, if that military was ever turned on them by a corrupt government.
Automatic rifles, such as the M-16, are not the equivalent to the cannon of colonial times.
The M777 Howitzer cannons and/or shoulder launched RPG's (Rocket Propelled Grenade's) are the basic equivalent to the cannon of colonial times.
Again, the literal context of the 2nd Amendment is: to give the exact firearm to the private citizens, with which their current military soldiers also carry into battle.
Trying to twist and turn such a context, is exactly what corrupt government loves to do. Do not fall for such a thing.
If they have problems with criminals getting such high powered rifles, then they need to come up with another way to prevent such a thing; but not by banning every citizen from owning them.
That'd be the equivalent of the King of England banning all rifles in citizens' hands back in colonial times, simply because some criminals abused them, and sniped people from long range; as opposed to running up on them and stabbing them with a knife.
If he did forcefully and successfully ban all guns because of this, then this nation (United States of America) would not be here today! Since the founding fathers, and other private citizens that fought in the Revolutionary War, would've been unarmed, and would not even bother fighting a whole army with guns in their hands.
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
www.ronpaul2008.com
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. December 2007 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
as long as they're well-trained, and law-abiding citizens.
Therein lies the dilemma. The majority of gun owners aren't well trained and there's no assurance the guns will only be in law-abiding hands. That's what curtailed ownership of automatic weapons to begin with. This is one point we're not likely to agree on. I don't think the founding fathers had their thoughts on Nostradamus or an eye to a crystal ball when writing the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin's idea of rapid fire was a bow.
I believe in the right to bear arms, but realize there should be a limit. Otherwise, why shouldn't I be allowed a few LAWs rockets along with a GE minigun?
|
|
