US gun laws

[nickdv]

I know, I know, I have a habit of posting contreversial subjects - so this one should be interesting.

In your opinian what is the limit on the second amendment?

What do you think about concealed carry?

Do you think civilian model assault weapons should be legal?

What do you think of the Texas statute that lets you shoot trespassers after dark on your property?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by nickdv
I know, I know, I have a habit of posting contreversial subjects - so this one should be interesting.

In your opinian what is the limit on the second amendment?

What do you think about concealed carry?

Do you think civilian model assault weapons should be legal?

What do you think of the Texas statute that lets you shoot trespassers after dark on your property?

1 is to braod.
2, its just fine
3 there are no civillian assualt style weapons. They have been illegal since the 1930's
4 fine by me. Civil court is a deterant to gun happy folk.

[nickdv]

3 there are no civillian assualt style weapons. They have been illegal since the 1930's

I meant semi auto style guns, dead zone. Such as the AR-15.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by nickdv
[QUOTE]3 there are no civillian assualt style weapons. They have been illegal since the 1930's

I meant semi auto style guns, dead zone. Such as the AR-15. Oh.

Of course. Why not. They are usually less powerfull than a bolt action hunting rifle.

[w1che]

Edited by me... Never mind..

[DustyBottoms]

My Remmington .270 model 4 is a semi-automatic and perfectly legal.

I also have 3 bolt-action rifles.

All are in a fireproof safe and well guarded.

Rights of ownership comes with responsibility.:smash

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
All are in a fireproof safe and well guarded.

Rights of ownership comes with responsibility.:smash
:clap :clap :clap

If only more people would do this.

[kontulib]

I don´t know what 2nd amende....whatever is, so I can´t vote.

[Serendipity]

Originally posted by kontulib
I don´t know what 2nd amende....whatever is, so I can´t vote. The 2nd amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, K-Lib. It is brief but to the point. Some people find it too short and open to interpretation. Others - particularly gun enthusiasts - think it is just right, and very clear:

Amendment II

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.

Constitution of the United States of America (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html)

I'm not voting because I'm not American.

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by Serendipity
...I'm not voting because I'm not American.

Why that is very UN-American of you Dippy :rolleyes: :lol

[AWPrime]

http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2000/om20000723.jpg

[aclu14]

Does the National Guard violate the Second Amendment?

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by aclu14
Does the National Guard violate the Second Amendment?

Only when they have too :eek:

[Phreakmeister]

Let's see how long it takes before sin or DZ and I start a discussion on the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment... :lol

BTW. Good cartoon, AW. Too many Americans do tend to view the world Manicheistically (either good or evil, either absolute freedom or absolute suppression, either free market or state-run economies, either total freedom or a total ban). Too many people on the other side of the Pond have lost the ability to view the world in the proper nuances, to put everything in the proper perspective.

[AWPrime]

He phreak you should really view more of them, here is their page.

http://www.ozyandmillie.com

[DustyBottoms]

I love the smell of napalm in the morning! :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

I don't know dude. I've got quite a few guns and I'm always having to put them back in the safe.... my 'ol double action .357 revolver is constantly trying to push me down the stairs, just last week it busted out my tail lights and crammed one of the broken sockets in my fuel tank (in a feeble attempt to blow me to hell when I hit the brakes).... it's a damn good thing I store the ammo away from him ... otherwise he'd (the .357 revolver) would try to shoot me. .... I'm not even going to get into how devious my semi-auto Colt model 1911 is.... let me just say I'd probably be dead right now if the model 1911 was able to obtain a high capacity clip.... good thing their outlawed!

[El Más Grande]

So due to any Americans right to carry firearms, it is safe for us to asume that if DZ suddenly stops posting, it is not because he's fed up with the verbal abuse on the forum, but rather that he was shot by his own gun?

As a consequence believers in the right to carry firearms can ask themselves this question:
Is living in a constant state of paranoia really freedom?

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by El Más Grande
Is living in a constant state of paranoia really freedom?

Actually, there is no paranoia as long as you know you can return fire. Going out into questionable environments unarmed is what causes paranoia...

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by El Más Grande
So due to any Americans right to carry firearms, it is safe for us to asume that if DZ suddenly stops posting, it is not because he's fed up with the verbal abuse on the forum, but rather that he was shot by his own gun?

As a consequence believers in the right to carry firearms can ask themselves this question:
Is living in a constant state of paranoia really freedom? the difference between us and them. being prudent and facing the reality of life that there are some out to get you is a state of fear.

I guess we can follow your logic through and demand you release all prisoners. After all, you are in a state of constant fear or they would not be any jails right?

:rolleyes:

[sinecure]

....can't.... resist..... must.... try... to.... stay... away.... :lol

There are two kinds of people--
Those with guns,
And those at their mercy.


....could....not....resist...:wink

:p

[Shilar]

Originally posted by nickdv
I know, I know, I have a habit of posting contreversial subjects - so this one should be interesting.

In your opinian what is the limit on the second amendment?

What do you think about concealed carry?

Do you think civilian model assault weapons should be legal?

What do you think of the Texas statute that lets you shoot trespassers after dark on your property?

Limit? Anything outside of defense or hunting (if needed).

Concealed Carry? All for it. There's been several instances where the only reason a crime has been stopped is the presence of a gun on someone else.

AR-15/AK-47? I prolly would not get one, but it should be legal. I'm happy with a crossbow, and would like a Ruger Carbine.

[Jeff]

It seems to me that the issue with guns is the same as almost every other controversial group - a few bad apples spoil its reputation. The VAST majority of responsible, legal gun owners are just that: responsible and LEGAL. These people do not want any trouble; they merely want a gun for protection or for recreational purposes. The folks that I am personally scared of are the ones who acquire guns through shady back-alley dealings for the sole purpose of assisting in future back-alley dealings. If anyone can find some non-liberal, non-conservative, non-anything statistics on how many crimes were comitted by lawful gun owners vs. illegal owners, I would love to see that.

Also, I recently watched "Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore. I was skeptical of the movie at first as I got the impression that it was out to kill the gun industry as much as the Japanese are to whales :wink . However, I was pleasantly surprised to find someone who took their investigative journalism role seriously and probed for a true cause of gun violence in America. What he found was quite obvious, but for some reason I don't believe many people buy it. What did he find? The media, big business, and government are all attempting to use scare tactics on the citizens of the US. I am not a total believer in all of Moore's thoughts, but this movie is a piece of cinematic excellence in my opinion.

I would recommend everyone watch it and report back here tomorrow with a 5 page paper, double spaced, size 12 Times New Roman Font, on the merits of the movie.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Jeff


Also, I recently watched "Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore. I was skeptical of the movie at first as I got the impression that it was out to kill the gun industry as much as the Japanese are to whales :wink .

However, I was pleasantly surprised to find someone who took their investigative journalism role seriously and probed for a true cause of gun violence in America. What he found was quite obvious, but for some reason I don't believe many people buy it.

What did he find? The media, big business, and government are all attempting to use scare tactics on the citizens of the US. I am not a total believer in all of Moore's thoughts, but this movie is a piece of cinematic excellence in my opinion.

I would recommend everyone watch it and report back here tomorrow with a 5 page paper, double spaced, size 12 Times New Roman Font, on the merits of the movie.

Before you do any more fawning over this "piece of cinematic excellence"... Check out:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and then drop by a site that is really upset with Moore: :)

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

There are many more Moore rebuttal sites... a couple minutes on Google will point them out.

As one site explains: "The point is not that Bowling is biased. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive."

There are those of us who feel that Bowling is "a piece of cinematic......" [Well, 'excellence' just doesn't fit here :wink]


"And the Oscar goes to....":rolleyes:

[AWPrime]

Yes people who are afraid, consume more and think less.

[Shilar]

Personally, any law that restricts my right to own any firearm is trying to put me in the same shoes as those who buy them from the street. In this situation, there are defesive people, and victims. It may sound harsh, but just because one doesn't like a gun, or want a gun, does that give him/her any more right to take my gun, or my father's guns, or even a gun collector's guns? What would be next, swords and knives?
On a more obvious note, the reason England allows guns (and even then, only small handguns) is because when they banned them outright, gun violence went up, as did all the other weapon-related crimes. A fine example of why the right to bear arms should not be billed to death. BTW, name me a famous British serial killer who never used a gun. :)

[Phreakmeister]

Does the right of decent people to keep and bear arms mean that the issue is a taboo, and that nothing can or should be done to regulate (not ban!) the possession of firearms? What is more important or vital to a society: everyone having arms, including those not worthy of possessing them, or those worthy of owning arms having to take some effort in order to prevent that everyone, good and bad, can possess arms? An outright ban of arms may not be right, and it may infringe upon the right of the decent, but does that mean that nothing should be done? Just about anything is regulated, why not arms? Arms don't deserve an overly negative treatment, but why do they deserve an overly positive treatment?

Originally posted by Shilar
BTW, name me a famous British serial killer who never used a gun.

Jack the Ripper...

[DEAD ZONE]

I dont recall anyone saying there should be NO regulations or laws at all. Its definning what is reasonable or allowed under the constitution that is the sticking point

[sinecure]

"Regulation" necessitates registration/listkeeping. Lists of law-abiding gun owners do nothing to make their guns any "safer," although it does make confiscation of large numbers of guns a lot easier.
Criminals/lawbreakers [by very definition] will not register their guns, so the authorities won't come looking to confiscate them.

You are saying "Pshaw... "confiscation"...that will never happen"??

Ask any Californian who owned a semi-auto rifle that was registered in the 1990's, then banned because it was placed on a list... and then required to be turned in or disposed of.

I don't have any "assault weapons"... mine are "homeland defense firearms."

[DustyBottoms]

When I was a kid, I purchased a WW2 30 cal carbine from an ad on the rear cover of a Popular Mechanics magazine. It cost $19.95 and came with two clips. (a 5 shot clip and a large 30 shot clip)

It came BY US mail - no FFL or anything else required.

I still have it. I guess I am now a criminal. :confused:

[Phreakmeister]

Sinecure, I was afraid you would come with a new round of your generalizations. I won't address the specifics of the situation in Kah-lee-foh-nia, since I don't know anything about that specific situation (surprised to hear that from me?). What I will say is this: regulation may have gone wrong in California, but why has it gone wrong? Because those politicians were of the opinion that a complete ban was necessary, or because the notion of regulation was flawed? I won't defend them or their action for one moment, all I'm saying is that this particular case does not prove that the entire notion of regulation the possession of firearms is wrong.
I'm not saying that confiscation will never happen. But does that mean that "we" have to sit back and do nothing? If we don't go to one extreme (ban and confiscation), do we have to go to the other extreme (doing nothing at all)? What is wrong with a position or a policy in between the two extremes? What is wrong with respecting rights yet at the same time tackling a social problem? You can't seriously say that nothing is going on and that there is no problem whatsoever. Because you're not saying/thinking thàt, are you?

[weldordave]

Wow, Phreak. You're losing your touch. A whole post and you've said absolutely nothing. Danced around in circles quite nicely, though.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
"Regulation" necessitates registration/listkeeping. Lists of law-abiding gun owners do nothing to make their guns any "safer," although it does make confiscation of large numbers of guns a lot easier.
God knows the federal government doesn't keep lists of folks they consider potential "dangers" to society based on what they buy --all in the interest of keeping the country "safer". Nooo, the US doesn't do that! Why, something like that is unprecedented, and big-brotherish! Why, it's unAmerican!

[Sjax]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
Actually, there is no paranoia as long as you know you can return fire. Going out into questionable environments unarmed is what causes paranoia...
Well, I live in a questionable environment (for danish standards, anyway. Gellerupparken for those who know Århus), and I have never owned, fired or even held a gun in my hands. Assuming that noone has the intention to kill me, that actually makes me safer (not just makes me feel safer, it actually makes me safer) If someone tries to rob me one day, they'll probably succeed. They will get some of my possessions, which will be replaced by the insurance. Because I won't have a gun, the situation will not escalate, and noone will get shot.

There are about 48 times more americans than danes, but there are about 1000 (thousand) times more gun related deaths in USA than in Denmark.

It's as simple as that...

[weldordave]

Originally posted by Sjax

There are about 48 times more americans than danes, but there are about 1000 (thousand) times more gun related deaths in USA than in Denmark.

It's as simple as that...
Gee, more statistics(sh1t1stics). Which, of course all sides have to bolster their argument. Love the word "about". What, sjax, not sure, or what? Are there 48 times more or what? So using your sh1tistical approach and your word "about", I can say that there are "about" 48 more Danes that will be victims of crime because they did not have a gun.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

God knows the federal government doesn't keep lists of folks they consider potential "dangers" to society based on what they buy --all in the interest of keeping the country "safer". Nooo, the US doesn't do that! Why, something like that is unprecedented, and big-brotherish! Why, it's unAmerican!

No matter what you think of the latest SCOTUS decisions... you ain't got no specific Constitutional right to privacy.:p

And, exactly how would YOU fight a "war on terror", Tig? Turn your back on it all and suggest we all hold hands across the entire nation whilst singing several rousing choruses of "Kumbaya"?? :clap

The question/point was "registration" of firearms. I still want somebody to explain how registering my firearms makes them any less lethal, or the world any more "safe". ....and then explain to me how listkeeping/registration does not and can not lead to confiscation.

Phreak, for once we agree.... You don't actually know what you are writing about. There are at least 20,000 firearms regulations/laws on the books in the US. So, we aren't "doing nothing"...

Here... educate yourself... I don't have the inclination or the time to do it for you

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/index.html

[sinecure]

Sjax--

Apparently, you have no real idea of how a gun is used as a defensive tool.

You "use" a gun when you merely let it be seen, point it, point it and command a person to stop/desist in their actions, and finally when you fire it.

You can stop a lot of bad activities simply by pointing a gun at the person doing it... no shot fired. Ask any policeman.

Why is it that most folks who actually know so very little about guns believe that they are nothing but "killing machines"? The media.

The gun(s)in my holster(s) are like the parachute on my airplane... I've never deployed it, but I "use" it every time the wheels leave the ground. :)

[Jeff]

Sin, those links that you posted don't seem to be working - is that true for anyone else?

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Jeff
Sin, those links that you posted don't seem to be working - is that true for anyone else?

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/index.html

Works fine here....:)

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
I still want somebody to explain how registering my firearms makes them any less lethal, or the world any more "safe".
I don't know who's arguing that improved registration would make guns less lethal. That's kind of silly.

What it will do is make it easier to catch bad guys. That's why the cops want it so much.

[Sjax]

Dave I don't know the exact number of neither Danes nor Americans, I only know that there is about 5 million danes and about 240 million Americans. It doesn't do anything to my point though, the point being: You have a much greater chance of being killed with a gun in USA than in Denmark.

Sin Yeah, I understand. Still, if the other person has a gun as well, chances are that one of us is ggoing to use it to more than ordering the other person around. And chances are that it won't be me. If I don't have a gun, I will never force the other person to commit desparate acts. Unless the other person really has the intention to shoot me (which I will never be able to prevennt him from doing), they wont do it.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

I don't know who's arguing that improved registration would make guns less lethal. That's kind of silly.

What it will do is make it easier to catch bad guys. That's why the cops want it so much.

Well, since I've had 32 years of" catching bad guys" in the Big City, please help me out here... explain just HOW registration helps "catch bad guys."

Oh, and where-oh-where did you get that tidbit of information that "the cops want [registration] so much."?

Since you don't seem to understand the original question, let me try it another way: How is YOUR safety enchanced by registering MY guns?

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Jeff
Sin, those links that you posted don't seem to be working - is that true for anyone else?

I don't know Jeff, I tried them right after posting them and they all worked.

Perhaps your browser is automatically putting another "http://" before the link?

Oh, and here's another site that has a few rebuttals for Mr. Moore's "piece of cinematic excellence" :rolleyes: :

http://www.gunowners.org/opmooretb.htm

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure


Well, since I've had 32 years of" catching bad guys" in the Big City, please help me out here... explain just HOW registration helps "catch bad guys."

It's just one more tool law enforcement can use, Sin.
Oh, and where-oh-where did you get that tidbit of information that "the cops want [registration] so much."?
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, for example, has publicly argued for making gun records more readily available to FBI & law enforcement for crime investigation purposes.
Since you don't seem to understand the original question, let me try it another way: How is YOUR safety enchanced by registering MY guns?
It isn't about your guns. It's about all guns.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

It's just one more tool law enforcement can use, Sin.

Hmmm... kinda like the "Homeland Security" measures you have so energetically railed against in the recent past?

No, Tig... no matter what the TV and movies show, gun registration is quite realistically a very dull and ineffective tool when it comes to solving crime. [Well, perhaps other than the crime of possession of a stolen gun that the owner was unaware it was stolen, and had not made a police report of the theft.] The expense and bother isn't worth what little crime-solving "advantage" you may perceive.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, for example, has publicly argued for making gun records more readily available to FBI & law enforcement for crime investigation purposes.

Reality check: The IACP are a bunch of political hacks. The vast majority are appointed by their dyed-in-the-wool politician mayors, and serve at their pleasure. Guess whose tune the C.O.P.'s are going to dance to?

Nope, if it's consensus you demand instead of using logic and reason, then ask the line officers' organizations... the guys who are out there in the RealWorld™ and know that a .357 in the hand beats a cop on the phone just about everytime.

It isn't about your guns. It's about all guns.

Well... MY guns are a part of "all guns." Is that so hard to understand?

Not a single gun control law works. Period.

[DustyBottoms]

My cousin just retired from the San Francisco Police Department after 33 years of service.

He has consistantly echoed Sin's comments above.

When Saturdaynight specials (cheap handguns) were outlawed in California, he was outraged. He said "Now the criminals will return fire with quality firearms."

Do law abiding citizens think that criminals actually purchase and register the firearms they use to commit robery and murder? If so, then the criminals are much smarter than the law abiding citizens.

The right to bear arms is a fact. We need to learn to live with it.

The best way is through education. We should teach our children the responsibilities that come along with that right.

I have personally attended gun safety training four times now.
Once when I was a teen, and once with each of my children. I can assure you that none of our guns will be used in a crime. When the are not in use they are kept in my gun safe.

If anyone tries to steal them I will shoot their eye out.
(Christmas Story) :)

I also have another quick entry push button gun safe in my bedroom for protection at night. I have a hot wife and will do what is necessary to protect her. Just having it available gives me a feeling of security. There are a lot of bad guys out there.

[Sjax]

Just to make something clear: I absolutely agree that the police should be armed with guns. What I am talking about is private people.
The cops shouldn't just surrender to anyone with a gun. Of course not.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Sjax
Just to make something clear: ... What I am talking about is private people.


So is everybody else.

As far as I know, nobody in the US is calling for the disarmament of the police.

.....yet.:lol

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by weldordave

Gee, more statistics(sh1t1stics). Which, of course all sides have to bolster their argument. Love the word "about". What, sjax, not sure, or what? Are there 48 times more or what? So using your sh1tistical approach and your word "about", I can say that there are "about" 48 more Danes that will be victims of crime because they did not have a gun.

You can't do math can you?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms


Do law abiding citizens think that criminals actually purchase and register the firearms they use to commit robery and murder?
No of cource not, but they usaly get them from people who did (stolen or bought). And with that you get some extra leads.



ps. Good to hear about a responsible gun-owner.

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by sinecure
...Not a single gun control law works. Period.

Uh, gun control means using both hands. Works for me :)

[DEAD ZONE]

think cops agree with gun control? Think again:http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=130

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Sjax

Well, I live in a questionable environment (for danish standards, anyway. Gellerupparken for those who know Århus), and I have never owned, fired or even held a gun in my hands. Assuming that noone has the intention to kill me, that actually makes me safer (not just makes me feel safer, it actually makes me safer) If someone tries to rob me one day, they'll probably succeed. They will get some of my possessions, which will be replaced by the insurance. Because I won't have a gun, the situation will not escalate, and noone will get shot.

There are about 48 times more americans than danes, but there are about 1000 (thousand) times more gun related deaths in USA than in Denmark.

It's as simple as that... Its as stupid *** that. Lets pick switzerland and try that math.:rolleyes:

Areas with loose weapons laws have fewer gun deaths than those that have heavy gun restrictions. "its as simple as that" . Paaaaaaaalease.:smash

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort

I don't know who's arguing that improved registration would make guns less lethal. That's kind of silly.

What it will do is make it easier to catch bad guys. That's why the cops want it so much. This is the biggets lie around. Show me a case where thats happemed? Good luck. You need to prove a certain person had a certain weapon at a certain time and comited a specific act.

A guns pedigree is usless in proving that .We have specific facts that show registration leads to confiscation right here in the us.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Sjax
Just to make something clear: I absolutely agree that the police should be armed with guns. What I am talking about is private people.
The cops shouldn't just surrender to anyone with a gun. Of course not. better rethink.http://www.nbc5i.com/news/2569241/detail.html-- A Dallas patrol officer is on leave facing a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Pamela Hampton, accused of sticking a loaded gun in her husband's face during an argument on Friday, spent part of the weekend behind bars.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime

No of cource not, but they usaly get them from people who did (stolen or bought). And with that you get some extra leads.



ps. Good to hear about a responsible gun-owner. criminald do not have to register their guns. The SCOTUS has said they do not . it would violate their 5th amendment rights. tell me again how registration will work?? Why not get one legally from a private person and not have to worry aboyt registration when you buy one from a dealler.awhy steal one?

[Ateo]

DZ, read the following:

http://www.iowasportsmen.com/News%20items/ashcroft_blocks_fbi_access_to_gu.htm

If better registration & better access to gun records isn't a useful tool for law enforcement, then why would the FBI want to use gun purchase records to investigate terrorists? Why would they waste their time doing that? Are they stupid?

PS - What always pollutes these gun control discussions for me is that the pro-gunners always turn it into "they want to tak away everyones guns!", which is BS. The central issue as I see it is the registration of firearms. What's wrong with making it tougher for average people to buy guns? Can't we at least make it as tough as being able to drive a car, especially when we're talking about the use of a lethal weapon? Making it tougher isn't taking away anyone's right to own a gun--it's just ensuring that those who do are more likely to use it responsibly.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
DZ, read the following:

http://www.iowasportsmen.com/News%20items/ashcroft_blocks_fbi_access_to_gu.htm

If better registration & better access to gun records isn't a useful tool for law enforcement, then why would the FBI want to use gun purchase records to investigate terrorists? Why would they waste their time doing that? Are they stupid?

PS - What always pollutes these gun control discussions for me is that the pro-gunners always turn it into "they want to tak away everyones guns!", which is BS. The central issue as I see it is the registration of firearms. What's wrong with making it tougher for average people to buy guns? Can't we at least make it as tough as being able to drive a car, especially when we're talking about the use of a lethal weapon? Making it tougher isn't taking away anyone's right to own a gun--it's just ensuring that those who do are more likely to use it responsibly.

Jeez, Tig... You still don't get it, do you?

A right isn't something that you need to pay for, be licensed/permitted to use, or encumbered in any way... no permission necessary...all you need to be is ready to accept the consequences for the mis-use of it [yelling "FIRE" in a movie house... or is that yelling "MOVIE" in a firehouse...]

For the last time--and please let this sink into your cognitive memory bank-- Driving a car on a public street is not a RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE. This fact, alone, negates any comparison between owning a gun and driving a car!

There is NO OTHER REASON for the registration of firearms other than the eventual confiscation of them. You can say that the FBI /HCI/MMM/or any other group wants to "stop the violence" by registering guns, but if you really look into it, their ultimate solution is the elimination of guns. The ones who believe that gun control will actually save lives are immersed in an emotional reaction to what they perceive as "evil". Their emotional "arguements" are designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason.

Then there are the ones who want gun control for the sake of disarming us. For these people it is not about guns, it is about control.

These factions along with the "It's for the children" crowd point to the extremely small percentage of guns that are used in various crimes and conclude that nobody but the people THEY permit should be allowed to have guns. I have a difficult time with that thinking...beginning with : Just because criminals commit crimes with firearms doesn't mean that you or I shouldn't be allowed to own them.

Ball's in your court... :wink

[Ateo]

I don't want to outlaw guns. Guns are a part of life in America, there's no hope of ever phasing them out of existence. People who want to outlaw guns (at least in the US) don't have a good grasp of reality.

BUT. Controlling how people buy/obtain/use guns--there are some possibilities there.

As for gun ownership being a right--like it or not, there is a caveat affixed to the 2nd amendment, something about a "well-regulated militia". So you don't have an iron-clad case there, Sin. You may have the right to own a gun for the purposes of participating in the militia, but as a private citizen? That's not clearly spelled out, I'm afraid. You have a valid argument, it's just not as inarguable as you think it is. :wink

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
I don't want to outlaw guns. Guns are a part of life in America, there's no hope of ever phasing them out of existence. People who want to outlaw guns (at least in the US) don't have a good grasp of reality.

BUT. Controlling how people buy/obtain/use guns--there are some possibilities there.

As for gun ownership being a right--like it or not, there is a caveat affixed to the 2nd amendment, something about a "well-regulated militia". So you don't have an iron-clad case there, Sin. You may have the right to own a gun for the purposes of participating in the militia, but as a private citizen? That's not clearly spelled out, I'm afraid. You have a valid argument, it's just not as inarguable as you think it is. :wink

You weren't paying attention when Phreak and I discussed this point ad nauseum earlier this year, were you? :smash :p

You see... it's called the bill of RIGHTS... and you don't "...control how people buy/obtain/use..." something that is a right.

The wording isn't confusing to me at all. What part of "..shall not be infringed." do you find so confusing? :rolleyes:

Still don't like it? Change the Constitution to where it says what you and your pals want it to say. Don't try to bast@rdize and fog the wording and meaning into gobbledegook. :wave

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure


You weren't paying attention when Phreak and I discussed this point ad nauseum earlier this year, were you? :smash :p

You see... it's called the bill of RIGHTS... and you don't "...control how people buy/obtain/use..." something that is a right.

The wording isn't confusing to me at all. What part of "..shall not be infringed." do you find so confusing? :rolleyes:

Still don't like it? Change the Constitution to where it says what you and your pals want it to say. Don't try to bast@rdize and fog the wording and meaning into gobbledegook. :wave

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

re: excessive bail...
http://www.sexcriminals.com/news/11973/
A $10 million bond ordered for a man suspected of sexually assaulting three metro-area teen-agers may be the highest ever in a Denver criminal case.
But it falls far short of a record $250 million cash bond that an Arapahoe County judge slapped on another assault suspect in 1999.
Hmm.

re: excessive fines...
http://charleston.net/stories/052003/bus_20worldcom.shtml
NEW YORK--WorldCom Inc. has agreed to pay investors a record $500 million to settle civil fraud charges over its $11 billion accounting scandal, which was the biggest in U.S. corporate history, lawyers for the company and the federal government announced Monday.

And I'd say death is pretty cruel (especially for someone who's innocent)...

Is literalness really the route you want to go here, Sin?


Anyway you're forgetting the "militia" part, which is kinda significant..I mean if you're gonna argue that we should take the BOR literally you can't ignore that passage, like you say I'm ignoring the "infringement" part (which I'm not. First things first).

[Sjax]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Lets pick switzerland ands try that math.
Forgive my ignorance, but why Switzerland? As far as I know they don't really differ from the rest of Europe on that matter.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

re: excessive bail...
http://www.sexcriminals.com/news/11973/

Hmm.


Yeah, "Hmmmm"... I'm almost embarrassed to start this with you, a fellow American, :o but here goes--

Do you have any idea of what "bail" is, Tig? It's money put-up to ensure that a person will remain within the jurisdiction of the court. If you post cash bail, you get it back when you show up. If you are a flight risk [no job, community ties, a significant amount of money, current passport, etc.] then high bail will likely be required for a serious crime. That recent case of the wealthy date-drugging dude they found in Mexico is a fine example of the bail system. He was required to post a high bail and skipped anyway. Any decent defense attorney can request a "bail hearing" to determine if a set bail is within guidelines.



re: excessive fines...
http://charleston.net/stories/052003/bus_20worldcom.shtml

Let's see... a judgement of 500 million in restitution for an 11 BILLION swindle. I'd take some of that capital growth investment any day!! Are you actually READING the stuff you are posting?


And I'd say death is pretty cruel (especially for someone who's innocent)...

I've SEEN authentic "cruel death" inflicted on victims, Tig. A needle in the arm, or a massive jolt of electricity is far and away the "kinder, gentler" method.

...and here's a flash for you... defendants aren't found "innocent", only "not guilty." There is no way to show that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to major crime. All I can say is those who have had it served upon them once, well, they never commit another crime.

Is literalness really the route you want to go here, Sin?

Sure, I'm not afraid of what the Framers wrote or their intent when they wrote it. It might be to your advantage to go back and skim over the discussion Phreak and I had on this very same subject. WARNING!!... You won't have the "advantage" of being able to claim ESL status!! :p


Anyway you're forgetting the "militia" part, which is kinda significant..I mean if you're gonna argue that we should take the BOR literally you can't ignore that passage, like you say I'm ignoring the "infringement" part (which I'm not. First things first).

Yeah, I addressed that to Phreak... but I'll go over that very same road again if you insist. :rolleyes:

[AWPrime]

The right to own a lethal firearm.....kinda nutty.


Instead support the right to arm bears!

[sinecure]

Originally posted by AWPrime
The right to own a lethal firearm.....kinda nutty.


Instead support the right to arm bears!

Wonderful, insightful thinking on both points there AW. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Thanks for not only elevating the intellectual tone of this lowly thread, but contributing your dazzling Antarctic brilliance to the entire board. :rolleyes:

I suppose you also think that the right to own one of those lethal boxcutters. a steak/kitchen/pocket knife, a baseball bat, a length of iron pipe or a set of fireplace tools is equally nutty?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
DZ, read the following:

http://www.iowasportsmen.com/News%20items/ashcroft_blocks_fbi_access_to_gu.htm

If better registration & better access to gun records isn't a useful tool for law enforcement, then why would the FBI want to use gun purchase records to investigate terrorists? Why would they waste their time doing that? Are they stupid?

PS - What always pollutes these gun control discussions for me is that the pro-gunners always turn it into "they want to tak away everyones guns!", which is BS. The central issue as I see it is the registration of firearms. What's wrong with making it tougher for average people to buy guns? Can't we at least make it as tough as being able to drive a car, especially when we're talking about the use of a lethal weapon? Making it tougher isn't taking away anyone's right to own a gun--it's just ensuring that those who do are more likely to use it responsibly. I asked you to show me just one case where it was used. The FBI has a record of abussing such records. Name me a terrorist attack here where a gun has even been used?{dont pull columbine either} Who bought the weapon is irrelavant to proving a case in a court.
"One reason that few [violent crime] guns are traced is that information about the chain of custody from manufacturer to retail sale is often not necessary for prosecution of state and local gun crimes. After all, a District Attorney bringing an armed robbery case needs to prove that the defendant used a gun, not that the defendant used a gun with a particular pedigree. In some cases, local police may find it faster to conduct a trace themselves than to ask BATF to perform the trace.

When purchasing a firearm from an FFL, a Form 4473 (also known as the "Yellow Form") and Form 77 must be filled out. The dealer must also record the sale in his bound-book.The dealer must keep the Form 4473 for twenty years and is subject to inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF or just ATF). The dealer also records all information from the form 4473 into his bound-book. A dealer must keep this log the entire time he is in business and is required to surrender the log to the ATF upon retirement from the firearms business.

In addition, the sale of two or more handguns within five days to the same person must be reported to the ATF via a Form 3310.4.

What the HELL more acess do they need. Thats a load of crap tig.It aids little at all and does nothing in prosecutting a case.

as for confiscation;
I have precident right here in this country where that is exactly what happened.


Its easyer to drive a car tig. Fact is, you dont need any license to do so except on public property. Why do you try and use cars when what you advocate is just the opposite? I agree. make it like cars. We need no license or regulation at all to buy one or drive it except on public areas.How about a gun carry law just like that. You can get as many as you like in a a variety that you like and only need a permit if going into a public are like the city.

Everywhere else is free game.

You use the same tired proven false arguments. A car is a leathl weaopn as well. I drove one all over the farm when I was a kid without any license or registration.

If you think no confiscation would happen, just whjat are YOU willing to put up as colateral. Say 500,000$ a gun?

I doubt it.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
I don't want to outlaw guns. Guns are a part of life in America, there's no hope of ever phasing them out of existence. People who want to outlaw guns (at least in the US) don't have a good grasp of reality.

BUT. Controlling how people buy/obtain/use guns--there are some possibilities there.

As for gun ownership being a right--like it or not, there is a caveat affixed to the 2nd amendment, something about a "well-regulated militia". So you don't have an iron-clad case there, Sin. You may have the right to own a gun for the purposes of participating in the militia, but as a private citizen? That's not clearly spelled out, I'm afraid. You have a valid argument, it's just not as inarguable as you think it is. :wink The militia bit has nothing to do as a qualifier. Even if it did we are all already members as layed down in the law. so that argument dose notwork.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia


THERE IS NO QUALIFIER SAYING YOU MUST BE A MILITIA MEMBER.
"After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"Coxe's defense of the amendments was widely reprinted. A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear "their private arms." The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.


William Rawle's "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" means individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens.

The militia clause was never meant to limit the right to keep and bear arms. Rather it was the "chief political reason for guaranteeing the right against governmental infringement. Keeping and bearing arms would be protected for all lawful purposes, but self-defense, hunting, shooting at the mark (i.e., target shooting), and other nonpolitical purposes had no place in a federal Constitution which delegated no power to regulate these activities. Since Congress could raise and support armies, the superiority of the militia in securing a "free" country must be declared." See Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991). "

No charge for the free lesson.



:wave

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Sjax

Forgive my ignorance, but why Switzerland? As far as I know they don't really differ from the rest of Europe on that matter. Every abled body male is required to have a weapon and be a militia man. They have a lot of guns per person as does finland andd a lower body count{since tyhat is the way you want to lable it}. Personally I think using a body count as a grade of somethings effectiveness is rather sick.Maybe we should dis arm the cops sincethey kill more innocent folk with guns than the gun carring citizen does.

[Ateo]

DZ,

All of those opinions you listed have one problem: they're not in the 2nd amendment, nor the BOR, nor the constitution. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State", unfortunately for your argument, is.

Sin, we don't have to go down that well-traveled road if you don't want to. I'm happy to just say we agree to disagree. :wink

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
DZ,

All of those opinions you listed have one problem: they're not in the 2nd amendment, nor the BOR, nor the constitution. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State", unfortunately for your argument, is.

Sin, we don't have to go down that well-traveled road if you don't want to. I'm happy to just say we agree to disagree. :wink WRONG. They are the contemporaries who WROTE it. Are you seriously taking Phreaks position that they did not know what they wrote or that you and revisionists now know what they REALLY ment?

ROFL. Thats the very reason no one beleives your argument that registartion will not lead to confiscation{b.s. I beleive you said}. It aint paranoid if they are really after you and given we have had such list in states like N.Y. used just for that, we need not bother buying the bill of goods you are salling.

Oh no. We sha;ll go. The militia was a reason not the reason and those contemporaries said just that many many times.

It does not say ONly ythose in a well regulated militia either now does it?

I suggest you read what a learned expert on the engluish language says it says since those who actually participated in its writting dont seem to know what they ment;:rolleyes:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

Professor Copperud .

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
DZ,

All of those opinions you listed have one problem: they're not in the 2nd amendment, nor the BOR, nor the constitution. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State", unfortunately for your argument, is.

Sin, we don't have to go down that well-traveled road if you don't want to. I'm happy to just say we agree to disagree. :wink So is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You need to read all of it not just snip parts out of original context to fit your preconcieved desires.

Not to mention learn a bit more about the english language.I have sorry gramar and spelling but even I can see wht you are doing.

Your first clause is the subordinate clause."It should be noted that the Amendment has two parts: (1) an observation, or perhaps a cautionary note ("A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and (2) a command or legal requirement ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"). The language of the first clause appears to impose no legal requirement or restriction on the federal government, Only the second clause indicates a right that the government cannot infringe."Robert J. Cottrol, Prof. of law, Reuters School of Law. Raymond T. Diamond, Prof. of law Tulane University School of Law.

You are focussing on the preamble and ignorring the actuall stautue or right.we do not base law on preambles.they are only refered to when it is unclear what is ment. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is very clear.The preamble, which is not a right, not a law, not a code, not a statute.

Try this
""In order to ensure a fresh supply of venison, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," would you argue that supermarkets always have a fresh supply of meat on hand and restrict firearms ownership on that basis. It’s the courts{and your} illegal use of the preamble that’s causing all the grief for gun owners because it’s difficult, if not impossible, to misinterpret "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That’s why the judiciary{and you} avoid it and constantly addresses the preamble. "


Laws covering the militia can be found in the Militia Act of May 8, 1792 and in 10 U.S.C. 311, and in state constitutions. But as it appears in the Second Amendment, it’s just an introduction and carries no legal authority except for clarification purposes only.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is a preamble, an introduction, a preface, a whereas,--not a therefore.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Try this
""In order to ensure a fresh supply of venison, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," would you argue that supermarkets always have a fresh supply of meat on hand and restrict firearms ownership on that basis.
The only problem there is, people still hunt today.

Around the time the 2A was written, the citizenry was the militia--nowadays there's a legal distinction between the two, therefore the 2A has lost some of it's relevence.

I'm not "ignoring" the latter part of the amendment, I'm just arguing that the former half informs the latter half. And if the former's relevence is questionable, then the latter can be called into question also. I say this admitting that back in the day, the 2A was 100% relevent. Today? maybe not.

I don't buy the "it's only a preamble" argument. Semantics.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort

The only problem there is, people still hunt today.

Around the time the 2A was written, the citizenry was the militia--nowadays there's a legal distinction between the two, therefore the 2A has lost some of it's relevence.

I'm not "ignoring" the latter part of the amendment, I'm just arguing that the former half informs the latter half. And if the former's relevence is questionable, then the latter can be called into question also. I say this admitting that back in the day, the 2A was 100% relevent. Today? maybe not.

I don't buy the "it's only a preamble" argument. Semantics. People still make up the militia . Both the federal unorganized and state. Texas has its own state militia.http://www.agd.state.tx.us/stateguard/

so there is no difference between then and now or what I posted.2a has lost nothing just because YOU want it to. Its the law period and that stilll dose not take into account the FACT that a militia is not a prerequisit to owning arms.

try this then;

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

[Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
--- Noah Webster of Pennsylvania, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787



No, the former is clear in the language . you ARE ignoring the later , the staute and the actual law, the original writers and everyone who is expert in the field.
Its clear you just willl not admit it.

its not semantics tig. its the language. its clearly stated in english and the laws of the time when it was written. They flat tell you exactly what they ment.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-kind-victims,0,6270127.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

TAMPA, Fla. -- Confronted with an armed intruder in their home, two women plied him with a ham sandwich and rum until he became groggy and passed out.

Police arrived and arrested Alfred Joseph Sweet, 52, to end the five-hour episode.

Cathy Ord, 60, and Rose Bucher, 63, said they tried to befriend the man after he burst through their kitchen window with a sawed-off shotgun Tuesday night.

They made him a sandwich, gave him a bottle of rum and suggested he shower and shave so he could "sort of be disguised in his getaway," Ord said.

"We just treated him with kindness," Bucher said.

She said she had offered Sweet cash and the keys to her Cadillac, but he just sat with them, holding his gun. The intruder never said what he wanted, the women said.

[DEAD ZONE]

check it out

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/Travel/pen_gun031031-1.html

Gatta get one of those.

http://stingerpengun.com/stinger.htm

http://stingerpengun.com/images/pistol1small.jpg
The Stinger™ Pengun is the only legal pengun in the world. It was classified a pistol by the ATF in 1991. It is not classified as AOW or under NFA rules. The ultimate in concealed "back up" weapons, the Stinger is an engineering work of art. The fit, finish, and function will make the Stinger one of your most prized collectable handguns. Fires a 22 long.http://stingerpengun.com/images/Thumbs/GoldSmall_t.jpg

Limited gold plated edition

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
check it out

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/Travel/pen_gun031031-1.html

Gatta get one of those.

http://stingerpengun.com/stinger.htm

http://stingerpengun.com/images/pistol1small.jpg
The Stinger™ Pengun is the only legal pengun in the world. It was classified a pistol by the ATF in 1991. It is not classified as AOW or under NFA rules. The ultimate in concealed "back up" weapons, the Stinger is an engineering work of art. The fit, finish, and function will make the Stinger one of your most prized collectable handguns. Fires a 22 long.http://stingerpengun.com/images/Thumbs/GoldSmall_t.jpg

Limited gold plated edition

You'll shoot your eye out!:lol

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

T
Around the time the 2A was written, the citizenry was the militia--nowadays there's a legal distinction between the two, therefore the 2A has lost some of it's relevence.

I'm not "ignoring" the latter part of the amendment, I'm just arguing that the former half informs the latter half. And if the former's relevence is questionable, then the latter can be called into question also. I say this admitting that back in the day, the 2A was 100% relevent. Today? maybe not.

I don't buy the "it's only a preamble" argument. Semantics.

While you say you are not ignoring the latter part, you are completely misreading the former... by applying 21st Century English idiom and construction to a 18th Century documented expression of thought.

The opening clause isn't superfluous, but it doesn't constrict the main clause of the Second Amendment, which states: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The best explanation of the introductory clause can be found in UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh's article "The Commonplace Second Amendment," which appeared in the New York University Law Review in 1998.

Volokh explains that the Second Amendment follows a common pattern of constitutional drafting from the Early Republic: There is a "purpose clause," followed by a main clause. For example, Rhode Island's 1842 freedom-of-the-press provision declared: "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty." This provision requires courts to protect every person's right to "publish sentiments on any subject" - even when the sentiments are not "essential to the security of freedom in a state," or when they are detrimental to freedom or security. (The Rhode Island Constitution, by the way, echoes William Blackstone's 1769 Commentaries: "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state.")

Similarly, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution declared: "Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time." This provision makes all pensions of longer than one year at a time void - even if the state is no longer "a young one" and no longer in need of economy. Volokh supplies dozens of similar examples from state constitutions.

As Volokh explains, the purpose clause can be used to resolve gray areas. For example, nineteenth-century American courts treated the Second Amendment as an individual right that could be exercised by any American. When asked what types of arms were protected, many courts held that the type of weapon had to be something that could be suitable for militia-type use. For example, a rifle would be protected, but not brass knuckles.

Like you, Tig, groups like Handgun Control, Inc. [or whatever their current incarnation is named], castigate the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment champions for sometimes quoting only the main clause of the Second Amendment. The anti-gun groups argue that the main clause can't be properly understood unless the introductory clause is also quoted.

But the United States Supreme Court does not seem to agree. Of the 29 U.S. Supreme Court opinions that have quoted the Second Amendment, 23 contain only a partial quote. This quoting pattern suggests that, generally speaking, Supreme Court justices have not considered the purpose clause at the beginning of the Second Amendment to be essential to the meaning of the main clause.

Of course, YMMV. :)

edit: changed "16th Century" to "18th ". Error was a result of late-night brainfade.

[DEAD ZONE]

Always remember, the rights ar already established as a given. to that , also remember the words of Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 14 September 1789

The preamble to the Amndmnts is realy curious — A careless reader would be apt to suppose that the amendments desired by the States had been graciously granted. But when the thing done is compared with that desired, nothing can be more unlike...

The constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS. THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD TO ALREADY EXIST.

Thus the 9th amendment.

Note the ruff draft sent to the senate

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Now how anyone can say its not the people who own arms is a mystery. The militia was compossed of the people at large. How can they be a militia without arms that they were required to supply.

1792 Uniform Militia Act;some excerpts

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within 6 months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a and a knapsack [etc] ... and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service..and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

There were two basic reasons for deciding that militiamen maintain their own arms, rather than the government providing all the arms. One was the fear that the government could give arms to some and deny them to others. The other was simply the cost of arming so many militiamen.

It would seem redundant to specify that members of a militia had the right to be armed. A militia could scarcely function otherwise. But the argument that this constitutional right to have weapons was exclusively for members of a militia falters on another ground. The House committee eliminated the stipulation that the militia be "well-armed," and the Senate, in what became the final version of the amendment, eliminated the description of the militia as composed of the "body of the people." These changes left open the possibility of a poorly armed and narrowly based militia that many Americans feared might be the result of federal control. Yet the amendment guaranteed that the right of " the people" to have arms not be infringed. Whatever the future composition of the militia, therefore, however well or ill armed, was not crucial because the people's right to have weapons was to be sacrosanct. As was the case in the English tradition, the arms in the hands of the people, not the militia, are relied upon "to restrain the violence of oppression"

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by sinecure
Phreak ... There are at least 20,000 firearms regulations/laws on the books in the US. So, we aren't "doing nothing"...

Well, you are if you don't harmonize the laws, which is the case for the US. The strict laws in some areas are undermined by the lax laws elsewhere. You can't say that lax laws in certain areas don't work if you don't know why they don't work. Is it because of the laws, or because the laws are undermined by legislation elsewhere?

DZ, your comparison to the situation in Switzerland is flawed. It's true that all men in Switzerland are members of the militia and issued rifles by the government. These rifles are all registered and all ammunition must be accounted for. When it comes to handguns, the Swiss require a background check, a permit to purchase a handgun, and handgun registration. If anything, Switzerland further proves that gun control does work.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
I suppose you also think that the right to own one of those lethal boxcutters. a steak/kitchen/pocket knife, a baseball bat, a length of iron pipe or a set of fireplace tools is equally nutty?

Do you use a gun to:

Cut a box?
Hit a ball?


No sane person would.


Guns are to kill!

And they work far beyond melee range (unlike your examples).

[Ateo]

Sin, you make a valid argument. I don't think there's a chance in hell that the 2A will ever be repealed. And my ultimate hope isn't that everybody has their guns taken away. I just think there are some chinks in the pro-gun argument's armor. Some people speak about individual gun rights like it's an inarguable tenet of American life, encoded into our national genetics. I think there's a reason the 2A was written in the first place, and it wasn't about hunting, or protecting one's property. It was about protecting/ensuring democracy by keeping the populace (militia) well-armed against foreign or domestic governments. That, I believe, is the only reason we have a 2A in the first place. If that was never written into the BOR, I believe people would still be able to own guns but they would be strictly regulated, because you wouldn't have the NRA lawyers and lobbyists sticking their noses into everything.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Well, you are if you don't harmonize the laws, which is the case for the US. The strict laws in some areas are undermined by the lax laws elsewhere. You can't say that lax laws in certain areas don't work if you don't know why they don't work. Is it because of the laws, or because the laws are undermined by legislation elsewhere?



You [b]STILL don't get the concept of what a State is, do you? This is "The United States", Phreak. We don't WANT to "harmonize the laws".

This gap in your understanding could be at the very center of your idiotic attitude as demonstrated in many posts on differing subjects here on this board... you might want to work on that.:wink :rolleyes:

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Sin, you make a valid argument. I don't think there's a chance in hell that the 2A will ever be repealed. And my ultimate hope isn't that everybody has their guns taken away. I just think there are some chinks in the pro-gun argument's armor. Some people speak about individual gun rights like it's an inarguable tenet of American life, encoded into our national genetics. I think there's a reason the 2A was written in the first place, and it wasn't about hunting, or protecting one's property. It was about protecting/ensuring democracy by keeping the populace (militia) well-armed against foreign or domestic governments. That, I believe, is the only reason we have a 2A in the first place. If that was never written into the BOR, I believe people would still be able to own guns but they would be strictly regulated, because you wouldn't have the NRA lawyers and lobbyists sticking their noses into everything.

Jeez... I DO wish you'd read the previous discussion Phreak and I had...

You write: "Some people speak about individual gun rights like it's an inarguable tenet of American life, encoded into our national genetics. "

I bet you inadvertently hit much closer to the truth than you would suspect...

You see... the BOR is there solely to make certain that Government doesn't "infringe" on those rights that Framers thought of as "Natural Rights"... rights that don't come from any government or ruler, but are possessed by all people at birth.

The 2A doesn't give you and me the "right" to own a gun.... We already HAVE that right.

I've studied and read and discussed this subject for many years [beginning in 1966/67, when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was first proposed] and I've NEVER run across any writing from the Framers that advocated the disarming of the civilian population...or the "control" of their firearms.

Apparently, you have a LOT more confidence in the government's benevolence than I do... I think that, were it not for the 2A and the NRA "sticking its nose into everything" [:rolleyes:] we'd have lost the right to keep and bear arms at the end of the Civil War... Lincolin set the Constitution on its ear at that time, and there was a animated discussion whether to allow the newly-freed slaves to have guns.

If not then, surely in the wake of the JFK assasination...

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Well, you are if you don't harmonize the laws, which is the case for the US. The strict laws in some areas are undermined by the lax laws elsewhere. You can't say that lax laws in certain areas don't work if you don't know why they don't work. Is it because of the laws, or because the laws are undermined by legislation elsewhere?

DZ, your comparison to the situation in Switzerland is flawed. It's true that all men in Switzerland are members of the militia and issued rifles by the government. These rifles are all registered and all ammunition must be accounted for. When it comes to handguns, the Swiss require a background check, a permit to purchase a handgun, and handgun registration. If anything, Switzerland further proves that gun control does work. Its not flawed because as usual you ignored the point and made one up of your own. It was said that there were more guns in point A than point b and thats why the gun deaths are high in pointA.

WRONG. Point C has as many guns as A and fewer deaths. Thats as elementary as I can make it for you. The point had NOTHING to do with registration and all that :rolleyes:

As for the harmozie bit Thats a two edge sword and not a good reason either. Lets pick 2 close localities that are similar.Your argument is basically this:

Washington, D.C. hassome of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

Objection: Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.

Logic: Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas. The murder rates are:


City...................... 1999 Murder rate
Washington, DC ............ 46.4 per 100,000

Arlington, VA ................ 2.1 per 100,000

(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,00037



Guns are not the problem. On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment.

The truth is that we the people, the source of the government’s power, are having our rights taken away from us in a slow creeping effort by our current politicians.

In my humble opinion the tail is wagging the dog as we say in Texas. The root causes of the problems of violence in America are being ignored for a quick and politically expedient solution. The laws of the land are quite clear, and for too long the citizenry has been made to bear the brunt of criminals in their midst. This land should be free of violence against any group; there should be a general feeling of security in the streets. Instead there is fear and we have the good honest people locked in behind their fences and doors, while the criminals roam free.

We don’t need “assault weapons” bans, we don’t need to have more gun control, we need less. We need to be able to carry our firearms openly in the land and to be able to assist the police or the highway patrol as called upon. We need to have the criminals locked up on the first strike, not the third. We need to stop the insane games being played that allow drug running gangs to run free killing at will. Bottom line, you commit a crime with a gun, fired or not, first time or not, not in your self defense, you go to jail for a long, long time, at least 30 years and it doesn’t matter if you are 10 or 100 years old.

Why do I feel so strongly about this? It is my rights being taken away is one reason. Another is that a firearm has saved my life and the life of some my family. The criminals backed down and left without a fight or a shot fired! I am not talking fantasy, rather fact!

If this right given to we the people dies, then all the others surely will. If you don’t see that and turn to support the people, then we should enforce the power of change that is our right and change the government.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Well, you are if you don't harmonize the laws, which is the case for the US. The strict laws in some areas are undermined by the lax laws elsewhere. You can't say that lax laws in certain areas don't work if you don't know why they don't work. Is it because of the laws, or because the laws are undermined by legislation elsewhere?



Many a criminologist will tell you that uniformity of laws and more of them is no answer and a simpleton aproach. It looks and sounds good but is nothing more than wishfull thinking.

"The main purpose of this paper has been to examine the viability of firearms registration and the control of the licensing of people to use and possess firearms. I have read many articles on the matters and interviewed several people from both sides of the fence. Without meaning to pre-empt some of the areas under examination I find conclusively that firearms registration is an exercise in futility." - Senior Sergeant S. W. Waterman, Victoria Police Inspectors' Course No. 51 - 1986
New Zealand:

"It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal." - Marvin E. Wolfgang, Patterns in Criminal Homicide,
(University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958) p. 82
Dr. Wolfgang is one of the founders of modern criminology. He was on record as stating that even police should be disarmed. If you think things have changed since his book...

"It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and thus that much homicide
would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." - James Wright and Peter Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous,
(Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1986)

Dr. Wright is a former president of the American Sociology Association. When he began the federally funded research that culminated in this book, he was in favor of strict gun controls.

And what does gun control have to do with violence?

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before." - Inspector Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972) p. 243

"...Consequently, when medical journal authors report that there is little evidence on a given topic, it may often really mean only that they made no serious effort to find any or chose not to report what they found. For example, in an article published in 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Douglas Weil (research director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, affiliated with Handgun Control) and a colleague claimed that "there is little published research on the effectiveness of gun laws" (Weil and Knox 1996:60). In fact, there were, at the time this article was published, at least forty-five empirical studies of the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents (Tables 8.4 and 11.1). Weil then proceeded to inaccurately claim that "with little dissent, these studies are generally supportive of the thesis that well-tailored gun laws can have a beneficial impact" (ibid.:60), when in fact the studies have generally indicated that gun laws, whether "well-tailored" or not, have no measurable impact on violence rates (Chapter 11; PB;Chapter 10)...." Page 42, Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns emphasis added.

"At first glance it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime, yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The numbers of firearms required to satisfy the 'crime' market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime." - Inspector Colin
Greenwood, "Shooting Back," Police Review, 10 November 1978 page 1668

Inspector Greenwood (England) took a sabbatical from his police duties to study gun control at Cambridge. He started off supporting gun control.

"In none of the cases examined in this study was the existence of these [gun registration] records of any assistance in detecting a crime and no one questioned during the course of this study could offer any evidence to establish the value of the system of registering weapons." - Inspector Colin
Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972,) p. 246

The Australian ban has had no effect on the overall homicide rate, though it will take several more years to have enough data to strongly confirm that:

"In other words, those who commit homicide in Australia are individuals who have circumvented legislation and will be least likely to be affected if further restrictions on firearms ownership are
introduced." - Jenny Mouzos, "The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms Used in Homicide,"
Australian Institute of Criminology, No. 151, p 5

New Zealand:

"The Police remain opposed to registering all firearms, the previous system (of firearm registration)
was inefficient, ineffective and expensive." - Chief Inspector G Jones, Coordinator: Firearms & Tactical Groups, March 18 1992 in a letter to the Auckland, New Zealand, Fish and Game Council

The error of gun control is the assumption that gun availability contributes to the severity of
violence. It doesn't.

"[W]hen used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression." - Toch, H. and Lizotte, A.,
"Research and policy: The case of gun control." In Suedfeld, P. and Tetlock, P. (eds.)
Psychology and Social Policy. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1991

Dr. Toch is another former gun control supporter.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


Do you use a gun to:

Cut a box?
Hit a ball?


No sane person would.


Guns are to kill!

And they work far beyond melee range (unlike your examples).

The only purpose of a gun is to kill. This is the basic principle underlying much of the gun control lobby's arguments and is used to justify some of the statistical manipulations they perform in order to support their case. Unfortunately for the gun control lobby, they are wrong. There are many people who buy guns with the intention of never using them to kill. Some people like to collect guns, especially those representing a specific era or time. Other people enjoy "plinking" or recreational shooting at non-living targets just as other people enjoy the practice of archery without every going bow-hunting or bow-fishing. Still other people like to shoot competitively. Some enjoy taking part in historical reenactments that involve firearms. Let us not forget those who purchase firearms purely for the purpose of protecting themselves. Many people are quite content to drive off an attacker using the mere display of a firearm, without ever actually firing it. There are many legitimate reasons for owning a gun that have nothing to do with killing.A gun is a tool used to shoot projectiles. What you shoot the projectiles at determines if there is any killing done. Your teeth were designed to tear flesh (and kill?) too BTW. A hammer can build homes or crush skulls.
I shoot more ammo in a month than all the crooks in all the crimes in this whole town (pop 500,000) do all year. Haven't killed a thing.
"[Knowledge is neither good nor evil, but takes its character from how it is used.] In like manner, weapons defend the lives of those who wish to live peacefully, and they also, on many occasions kill [murder] men, not because of any wickedness inherent in them but because those who wield them do so in an evil way."


Next time you see Olympic events involving guns, I want you to tell them they are to kill and ask the competitors haw many people they have killed. I have had guns all my life and none have killed anyone to date. {Only a few critters}.

[sinecure]

DANG!! DZ... You're coming up with some good points there...

...and well-presented, too. :clap

Keep drinking whatever it is you're drinking... or stay away from that stuff you were drinking!!

:lol :lol :lol :wave

This latest Lost Angeles shooting of an attorney just outside a courthouse shows that a handgun is actually a pretty poor "killer". Six shots from no more than 3 feet away... and the victim is in good condition at the local hospital.

People who are ignorant of guns commonly have this mindset [learned no doubt from movies/TV] that if you are shot, you die. These are the same people who are always ready to tell us how terrible guns [especially handguns] are... yet they don't actually know what they are talking about.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
This latest Lost Angeles shooting of an attorney just outside a courthouse shows that a handgun is actually a pretty poor "killer". Six shots from no more than 3 feet away... and the victim is in good condition at the local hospital.
Come on, Sin. First of all there was a tree there.

And that attorney had some awesome Matrix bullet-time moves. :)

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

Come on, Sin. First of all there was a tree there.

And that attorney had some awesome Matrix bullet-time moves. :)

Well... it was a pretty small tree... and trees aren't the best cover, tactically-speaking, because --being fairly cylindrical-- the bullet has a lot less wood to travel through near the edges, severely narrowing the tree's effective bullet-stopping area.

And he DID get hit in the arm, neck and cheek.

While the attorney showed some great Matrix-like defensive/avoidance moves, the point to consider is that a handgun really isn't all that great of a killer.

I think the shooter is going to be charged with hunting attorneys out-of-season, as well as illegally baiting them with a sizeable Trust Account. :wink

Nahhh, the shooter needs to go away for a long time. It is interesting to note that so many people watched the whole thing and did nothing. Most of them saw all the cameras that were there for the Robert Blake trial, and figured it was just another movie being made. Also, since guns aren't allowed in the courthouse [metal detectors and all] the off-duty, out-of-uniform Reserve Sheriff's Deputy who tackled the shooter wasn't armed, as he had left his gun in his car. Whether or not the shooter [i]knew that he was in a virtual gun-free zone or not, he had apparently planned ahead a little. The shooter had two reviolvers on his person. That could've been very bad for the Deputy, but it all turned out OK.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE



[quote] Your teeth were designed to tear flesh (and kill?) too BTW. A hammer can build homes or crush skulls.
This does take more effort than simply pinting a gun and pulling the trigger. You should try to see the diff. between lethal and possibly lethal (primary use vs. secondary use)


I shoot more ammo in a month than all the crooks in all the crimes in this whole town (pop 500,000) do all year. Haven't killed a thing.
Bad shooting? You keep missing them?


Many people are quite content to drive off an attacker using the mere display of a firearm, without ever actually firing it.

And I have know of many people that drive off an attacker with by displaying their anger.




Gun sports - We have them here but they keep their guns at the clubhouse and are not taken home!

Gun collectors - Here they are forced to disable them, making them harmless.

[sinecure]

Once again AW, you reveal an abysmal ignorance of guns and shooting... yet that doesn't seem to stop you from expressing a rought-down-from-the-Mountain-on-stone-tablets opinion of the subject.

Do you have any idea of the amount of skill it takes to shoot at and hit say, a 10" paper plate at 10 meters?... 25 meters? 100 meters? How about the difference in skill levels required between a rifle and a handgun?

If you've known "many people who have driven off an attack by displaying anger"... well all I can say is that you have some pretty faint-hearted "attackers" there in Antarctica... but then I suppose those penguins were never widely regarded as tough guys. :lol

I wouldn't depend on the "display of anger" defense technique anywhere else...:rolleyes: :p

Like my Momma always told me: "You can get a lot more cooperation with an angry face and a gun than you can an angry face alone...":lol :lol :wave

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by sinecure
DANG!! DZ... You're coming up with some good points there...

...and well-presented, too. :clap

Keep drinking whatever it is you're drinking... or stay away from that stuff you were drinking!!

:lol :lol :lol :wave

This latest Lost Angeles shooting of an attorney just outside a courthouse shows that a handgun is actually a pretty poor "killer". Six shots from no more than 3 feet away... and the victim is in good condition at the local hospital.

People who are ignorant of guns commonly have this mindset [learned no doubt from movies/TV] that if you are shot, you die. These are the same people who are always ready to tell us how terrible guns [especially handguns] are... yet they don't actually know what they are talking about. It’s the same arguments we have had. I just kept them so I did not have to retype and get that carpel tunnel stuff.

A long gun or shotgun will almost always be fatal. A hand gun is surprisingly usually not. It’s called hydro-static-shock people. Learn it.

There are always exceptions to rules however. Ammunition type also determines the outcome.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by sinecure


Well... it was a pretty small tree... and trees aren't the best cover, tactically-speaking, because --being fairly cylindrical-- the bullet has a lot less wood to travel through near the edges, severely narrowing the tree's effective bullet-stopping area.

And he DID get hit in the arm, neck and cheek.

While the attorney showed some great Matrix-like defensive/avoidance moves, the point to consider is that a handgun really isn't all that great of a killer.

I think the shooter is going to be charged with hunting attorneys out-of-season, as well as illegally baiting them with a sizeable Trust Account. :wink

Nahhh, the shooter needs to go away for a long time. It is interesting to note that so many people watched the whole thing and did nothing. Most of them saw all the cameras that were there for the Robert Blake trial, and figured it was just another movie being made. Also, since guns aren't allowed in the courthouse [metal detectors and all] the off-duty, out-of-uniform Reserve Sheriff's Deputy who tackled the shooter wasn't armed, as he had left his gun in his car. Whether or not the shooter [i]knew that he was in a virtual gun-free zone or not, he had apparently planned ahead a little. The shooter had two reviolvers on his person. That could've been very bad for the Deputy, but it all turned out OK. Why would they stop him? They were rooting for the shooter.

Root...tree.... get it.

never mind.Childish atempt.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime

This does take more effort than simply pinting a gun and pulling the trigger. You should try to see the diff. between lethal and possibly lethal (primary use vs. secondary use)

Look who is talking. You arbitrarily designate what something’s use is then proceed to knock down the old straw man. Well, the gatlin gun was designed to stop wars. The hope was to make them so horrible that man would not have them. Its intent was noble and also folly.

It’s astounding how people can arbitrarily decide what inanimate objects intent is. A gun is designed to fire a projectile, nothing more. The intent is the sole arena of the one firing it.
Now ammunition is desighened to have varying effects.



Bad shooting? You keep missing them? there is a good example of your arbitrary intent. I don’t shoot at people. At least not yet.:lol


And I have know of many people that drive off an attacker with by displaying their anger. as long as they are intimidating. Tell that to the invalid, a female being rapped or a small stature person. Intimidation does not work without something to back it up.




Gun sports - We have them here but they keep their guns at the clubhouse and are not taken home!

Gun collectors - Here they are forced to disable them, making them harmless. [/QUOTE] who cares about gun sports when you are being attacked. Why must I be told where I must go to have a sport? Why can’t I do it in my back yard on my 100 acres? No one to hurt?

Careful about that sporting test. The Nazis used it.:wink

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
[quote]It’s astounding how people can arbitrarily decide what inanimate objects intent is. A gun is designed to fire a projectile, nothing more.
:lol :lol If this was true there would have been non-lethal ammo for guns since they were invented.

An object is always used on something:
Hammer - nail
Gun - something alive


as long as they are intimidating. Tell that to the invalid, a female being rapped or a small stature person. Intimidation does not work without something to back it up.
A relentless physical and verbal counterattack can chase everybody but the worst scumbags away.

You see it in the papers here now and then that a grandma chased away a burglar with just her handbag.


who cares about gun sports when you are being attacked. Why must I be told where I must go to have a sport? Why can’t I do it in my back yard on my 100 acres? No one to hurt?
One word: safety


Careful about that sporting test. The Nazis used it.:wink
Test, what are you talking about? And for hell sake make proper quotes!

[Ateo]

Sin brought up the anti-"Bowling For Columbine" sites awhile back in this thread. I just saw the movie for the first time last night.

Some of the criticisms about Moore's editing choices seem valid, but inconsequential to the overall point of the movie, IMO. The accusation that concerned me most was that the "gun giveaway" sequence in bank was staged. It didn't seem staged when i watched it--there were guns hanging on the wall of the bank, there was a bank flyer that Moore showed, and the employees openly admitted that they gave guns away. So I tracked down the original source of this accusation, and it was some guy who basically said "it was staged". No proof, no interviews with bank employees or managers, nothing--just some guy with an opinion. I also wonder why the bank would willingly set itself up for ridicule just for Moore's movie, especially if they're pro-NRA.

[sinecure]

While I know the bank gun-giveaway is authentic...[ there is a bank in Colorado that has ben doiing this for around 20 years now...] be aware that there is no bank in South Central LA that is offering Glocks and Mac-10 handguns as premiums. It's a regional-cultural thing. I doubt if banks in Nebraska ever offered surfboards as premiums... like a local California bank did here a few years ago.

The purposeful disingenuity that Moore presents by showing that you walk into a bank, deposit some money, and then walk out of it a few minutes later with a gun... well, that's just bogus. It don't work that way.

I wonder how many guns [bolt-action hunting rifles] obtained from the various banks who offer such a premium have been used in any sort of crime? ...I wonder how many steak/kitchen knives given away by other banks and institutions as premiums have been used for less-than-legal purposes?

There are short interviews with the particular bank personnel shown in Moore's film available online. They point-out the "creative editing" that Moore used. I'll see if I can find a couple... Or you can Google them up yourself.

You make mention of "the overall point of the movie." Please explain and define what point YOU see as "overall".

[sinecure]

Originally posted by AWPrime

:lol :lol If this was true there would have been non-lethal ammo for guns since they were invented.

Thaw your brain out and think... rocksalt, wooden dowels, rice folded into silk bags... there have been thousands of kinds of non-lethal ammunition used "since they were invented." You seem to be blissfully UNaware of your ignorance of the subject, yet you continue to charge on, through the fog.. :rolleyes:

An object is always used on something:
Hammer - nail
Gun - something alive

You want to explain what your point here is? "An object is always used on something." You make no sense--

If you are trying to say that any tool only has one purpose-- then you are quite wrong.

A relentless physical and verbal counterattack can chase everybody but the worst scumbags away.

Until a well-placed punch stops the "relentless counterattack". If this is your complete defense philosophy, you'd better STAY in Antarctica. The RealWorld™ will eat you up.

You see it in the papers here now and then that a grandma chased away a burglar with just her handbag.

Why do you see it in the papers? 'Cause it is so unusual. :rolleyes:



One word: safety

A stupid response...

You travel in a car at 70mph. Across the centerline of the highway is another car speeding towards you at 70 mph. Do the math and figure either the energy or momentum of a head-on collision. The only thing preventing this collision is the condition of each car's suspension, tires and steering and the skill and intent of the respective drivers. It's dangerous, yet we accept the risk.

A properly designed/utilized bullet backstop on DZ's home shooting range will stop all projectiles, and he says there's no one to hurt there anyway.

Yeah, that's a pretty stupid response..


Test, what are you talking about? And for hell sake make proper quotes!

"For hell's sake..." :lol: fix your tagline. It's bothered me from the first time I've read it. Very clumsy structure there.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
You make mention of "the overall point of the movie." Please explain and define what point YOU see as "overall".
It's this: the reason the US has such a violent culture is because we're pumped up with fear & paranoia by the media and politicians. I think that's Moore's main point; the criticism of the gun culture is secondary. In fact he points out that Canadians have tons of guns, but very low gun death rates compared to the US. He isn't saying that guns are the reason behind all the violence, but rather it's the paranoid, agitated mindset of the populace.

Sin, you should rent the movie. I'd be interested to read your take on it afterward.

The one sequence where I felt Moore was out of line was his interrogation of Charleton Heston. That was painful, given Heston's condition (although Moore didn't know about it at the time of the interview). Still, Chuck's remark that "ethnic mixing" was the reason behind violence in the US was pretty shocking...

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime
:lol :lol If this was true there would have been non-lethal ammo for guns since they were invented.
They did not need it. Simply do not pack a ball in the flintlock.
No bullet is automatically lethal. I have fired many and no one is dead. Where is the lethality?
An object is always used on something:
Hammer - nail
Gun - something alive
Then where is my body count?
Hammer+ head
Gun+ paper target.

The user is sole determiner of intent and lethality.
A relentless physical and verbal counterattack can chase everybody but the worst scumbags away.

You see it in the papers here now and then that a grandma chased away a burglar with just her handbag.Hog wash. Read the paper and see where it escalated to violence. You see where they are brutally assaulted as well.
One word: safety
As in disarming the innocent but not the criminal. Strange view of safety.

One more word; enslavement
Safety you say;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/27/MN116469.DTL
We need car control...woops. Have it already.


Test, what are you talking about? And for hell sake make proper quotes! Why when you are so irritated by the simplest little things.

There is no "sporting test" to the articles in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting any more than the First Amendment is about Scrabble or crossword puzzles. In fact, the "sporting purpose" tests for
Firearms was invented in Nazi Germany. Why do gun-grabbers want to borrow from them?
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

If you allow guns to be kept only for "sporting purposes," or even if you have a "right" to own guns for those purposes, then your guns can be banned by outlawing those sports. COMMONS VOTES TO BAN FOX HUNTS http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a675c9b5cf3.htm
(Admittedly fox hunts don't use firearms in Britain - but this just makes the case stronger, not weaker: They can ban sports even when firearms aren't "necessary" for that sport.) Actually, all hunting is threatened in Britain: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-66829,00.html

The gun control act of 68 gave federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C., the power to decide what kinds of firearms you can own. The framers of GCA '68 borrowed an idea -- that certain firearms are "hunting weapons" -- from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, "sporting purpose," was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA '68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so. The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.
The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them. In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Sin brought up the anti-"Bowling For Columbine" sites awhile back in this thread. I just saw the movie for the first time last night.

Some of the criticisms about Moore's editing choices seem valid, but inconsequential to the overall point of the movie, IMO. The accusation that concerned me most was that the "gun giveaway" sequence in bank was staged. It didn't seem staged when i watched it--there were guns hanging on the wall of the bank, there was a bank flyer that Moore showed, and the employees openly admitted that they gave guns away. So I tracked down the original source of this accusation, and it was some guy who basically said "it was staged". No proof, no interviews with bank employees or managers, nothing--just some guy with an opinion. I also wonder why the bank would willingly set itself up for ridicule just for Moore's movie, especially if they're pro-NRA. that bank must be FFl licensed or it cant give away any guns. He filled out the forem which requires a background check that was not shown and then aske if its a safe practice. Well, if you have to deposit lots of cash to get a rifle{no bullets} its not a very likely way to start a robbery.He had to produce a photo i.d. making it a good possibilty of being easily identified,plus have him wait there for about half an hour making him seen and even more able to be i.d. so on so forth.

Much easier to get a gun on the black market and a lot les likely to be identified.The joke is on you seeing danger where ther is none really.

REMEBER SPINAL TAP. :clap


JOHN FUND sites
FORBES MAGAZINE ;

The bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account,one Jan Jacobson, said that seen only happened because Mr. Moore's film company worked a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

[DEAD ZONE]

It's this: the reason the US has such a violent culture is because we're pumped up with fear & paranoia by the media and politicians. That was and is a valid point.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
JOHN FUND sites
FORBES MAGAZINE ;

The bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account,one Jan Jacobson, said that seen only happened because Mr. Moore's film company worked a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

Hmm. I just did a quick Google search and found this:

http://chalktalk.typepad.com/chalk_talk/2003/09/michael_moore_r.html
In my analysis I had to give Moore's attackers the benefit of the doubt and conclude that some prearrangement took place without Moore's knowledge. Moore now presents outtakes from the scene which not only show that it happened exactly as he says but also that both the bank and the media have deliberately deceived the public about the bank's policy. The WSJ noted in an editorial:

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says.

This paragraph contains more deception than Moore's entire film. A Forbes article repeated the claim: "You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check."

In the outtake, Jacobson explains the policy more specifically. Moore can pick the gun up immediately from their vault (which is not "two hours away", as some reports have claimed) -- he specifically asks Jacobson whether this can be done in the bank and Jacobson responds that it will only take a few minutes. The outtakes show him going through the complete background check and a bank employee returning from the bank's vault with the gun. The policy which the WSJ article refers to, the outtake shows, applies only to people who cannot come to the bank to pick up their gun. In these cases, customers have to pick it up at a licensed firearms dealer near them because the gun cannot be shipped directly.

[Ateo]

And here:

http://www.itsthecatsass.com/newboard/messages/37982.htm
I was the "Bowling for Columbine" producer who scouted the bank that gives you a gun. I was there for Michael Moore's only and entire visit to the bank and was dismayed to see you repeating an outright lie about this scene. Mike walked into North County Bank and walked out with a gun in less than an hour. He opened a CD account, they faxed in his check, it came back all clear, and a bank official handed him his rifle. The crew, Mike and I then drove to directly the barber shop where Mike bought the bullets for his new rifle just as you see in the film. All this occurred before lunch that day, the final day of filming. Then everyone flew home. Maybe you ought to expose the origin of this lie rather than repeat this easily refuted fabrication.


Moore quote: "I walked in cold. It happened exactly as you see in the film. A producer did call ahead and said I wanted to come in. It is not true that an ordinary person could not have walked in and gotten a gun. No need to go to a gun shop; they had 500 guns in their vault. There's a 2001 story in the St. Petersburg Times about how the bank is proud as a peacock about its gun offer."

People who make up lies in order to paint someone as a liar have no integrity.

[Ateo]

Oh, and Sin: if you're going to go around posting those anti-Moore websites on message boards, the least you could do is read Moore's rebuttal:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Oh, and Sin: if you're going to go around posting those anti-Moore websites on message boards, the least you could do is read Moore's rebuttal:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Well WTH do you expect Moore to say? :rolleyes:

It comes down to who you believe, I guess... a bank employee or a guy trying to cover his ample a$$ which has been exposed.

I'm surprised he didn't quote author and discredited Bancroft Prize recipient Michael Bellesiles!!

So... from now on, I can expect that you will be quoting the NRA's position on every one of your anti-gun rants... just to maintain "fairness"?? :lol :lol :wave

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
Thaw your brain out and think... rocksalt, wooden dowels, rice folded into silk bags... there have been thousands of kinds of non-lethal ammunition used "since they were invented."
Can you give me an example if their use, in lets say the 17th century?

You want to explain what your point here is? "An object is always used on something." You make no sense--

If you are trying to say that any tool only has one purpose-- then you are quite wrong.
There is a thing as a primary purpose for with they are designed.
And guns are designed to kill!

Until a well-placed punch stops the "relentless counterattack".
Ever heared about Martial arts.

One of my points is that guns are unnessasary for defence. Should everyone really want to defend themselfs with guns, they would have to carry them around everywere.

Can you imagen what would happen if you got into a fight?


You travel in a car at 70mph. Across the centerline of the highway is another car speeding towards you at 70 mph. Do the math and figure either the energy or momentum of a head-on collision. The only thing preventing this collision is the condition of each car's suspension, tires and steering and the skill and intent of the respective drivers. It's dangerous, yet we accept the risk.
a stupid response


A properly designed/utilized bullet backstop on DZ's home shooting range will stop all projectiles, and he says there's no one to hurt there anyway.
You can't blame me if I don't trust DZ with this. He could still messup. A backstop is only as good as the shooter.


"For hell's sake..." :lol: fix your tagline. It's bothered me from the first time I've read it.
Sorry, that was diliberate:wink .

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by sinecure
You [being a subject of an all-powerful Central Government] STILL don't get the concept of what a State is, do you? This is "The United States", Phreak. We don't WANT to "harmonize the laws".

This gap in your understanding could be at the very center of your idiotic attitude as demonstrated in many posts on differing subjects here on this board... you might want to work on that.:wink :rolleyes:

:lol :lol :lol

You just demonstrated how horribly little you know about the Netherlands. We don't have "an all-powerful Central Government." I'm sad to have to break that news to you.
For your information: harmonizing laws is different from imposing a law from above. In the first case, states adapt their specific laws to the laws elsewhere, therefore creating state legislation that is more or less similar throughout the nation. In the second case, the federal government imposes one law that applies to the entire nation. Your notion of harmonization is utterly inconsistent with reality.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Where is the lethality?
Gee a metal 'arrow' flying at high speed......nothing lethal about that.....ya right.


Hammer+ head
Gun+ paper target.

The user is sole determiner of intent and lethality.
I do think I have a better chance of surviving an assault if the attacker uses a hammer instead of a gun.



If you allow guns to be kept only for "sporting purposes," or even if you have a "right" to own guns for those purposes, then your guns can be banned by outlawing those sports. COMMONS VOTES TO BAN FOX HUNTS http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a675c9b5cf3.htm
(Admittedly fox hunts don't use firearms in Britain - but this just makes the case stronger, not weaker: They can ban sports even when firearms aren't "necessary" for that sport.) Actually, all hunting is threatened in Britain: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-66829,00.html

Very off topic. Banning Fox hunting is about the cruelty of a pack of dog ripping a fox apart alive.
It's not a sport, for it requires no skill of physical labor.



The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them. In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.
So what, in the US at the time it was illegal for a black man to own a handgun.

And you took a lot over form the Nazi, like you large interstate highways were based upon what the Nazi's did in their country.
Does this make them (interstate highways) evil?

[sinecure]

Originally posted by AWPrime

Can you give me an example if their use, in lets say the 17th century?

Sure... Back then, when I was a private in the army [and also about the only person in the 17th century who gave a tinker's damn about "less-lethal" munitions] I used wooden dowels over a light charge of powder to ... Wait a minute, I'm not gonna fall for that...you're just trying to trick me into telling my age... :lol:


There is a thing as a primary purpose for with they are designed.
And guns are designed to kill!
Nope... I have several that weren't "designed to kill". Your ignorance of the subject is showing again.


Ever heared about Martial arts.

What? Like your example of "handbag-fu?" or "relentless physical and verbal counterattack-ki-do? You really can't be that out of touch with reality, can you?

One of my points is that guns are unnessasary for defence. Should everyone really want to defend themselfs with guns, they would have to carry them around everywere.

Well..... yeah. Some of us DO... many more would want to.

Can you imagen what would happen if you got into a fight?

Don't have to imagine... Been-there, done-that... several times both professionally and otherwise.

You truly ARE that disconnected with the real world, aren't you? :rolleyes:



a stupid response

"Stupid" only if you can't grasp the idea of "acceptable risk"... and just how much of that we ALL indulge in everyday.



You can't blame me if I don't trust DZ with this. He could still messup. A backstop is only as good as the shooter.

Yeah... I think I'm going back to ignoring you. this really isn't worth the time or effort. :wall



Sorry, that was diliberate:wink .

No... that was ignorant. However, in YOUR case, it just might qualify as "deliberate ignorance"... bye :wave

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort


Hmm. I just did a quick Google search and found this:

http://chalktalk.typepad.com/chalk_talk/2003/09/michael_moore_r.html


In my analysis I had to give Moore's attackers the benefit of the doubt and conclude that some prearrangement took place without Moore's knowledge.
Just what happened and how was it without his knowlege? I dont buy that for a second.Who is this guy anyway. What expertise on the law does he have?
Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle. This is fact. I have filled that form out and gone through a check or two and it took more than 15 minutes.

The "out takes" do not run strangely.

If its a private sale no check is needed.A bank giving them out as incentive is not a private sale but a business.Edit that. It is licensed.

"The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922)."
According to Moore.
Personally I think his film fals more along the lines of mockumentary filmmaking.

Two giants in the field now. Rob Reiner and his film This is Spinal Tap and now Michael Moore with Bowling for Columbine.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime

Can you give me an example if their use, in lets say the 17th century?
My grandmother used them as did some neighbors. I even shot rock salt at a few dogs.



There is a thing as a primary purpose for with they are designed.
And guns are designed to kill!
Keep repeating that to yourself for therapy.

They are designed to shoot a bullet. Some for targets only some for skeet some to kill some for plinking ect. So on so forth.

Its intent friend. Learn it dernit!


Ever heard about Martial arts. ever heard of disabled? Ever heard of never bring a knife to a gun fight?


One of my points is that guns are unnecessary for defense. Should everyone really want to defend themselves with guns, they would have to carry them around everywhere.And you have yet to make it stick. Physical strength nullifies a lot and anyone that have seen or been in a street fight knows that the average black belt will get his @ss kicked. Street fighting is no sterile class room with mats and rules.

[QUTOE]Can you imagine what would happen if you got into a fight? they already do and crime has not gone up but down. An armed society is a polite society.



a stupid response u hun. A good point actually. Clearly you got it.
Better than your excuse about spelling. I fixed some of yours again.:wink


You can't blame me if I don't trust DZ with this. He could still mess-up. A backstop is only as good as the shooter.Could? Lets pass laws on COULD. You could go bizerck and have a break down. Your gas in the house could blow you up. Everyone could become a murderer. You don’t base law on "could".

A lot of things could and DO mess up. Let’s ban them all folks. Turn off the computer and crawl into your holes and wait for jubilee!!!!!!



Sorry, that was diliberate:wink .

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime

Gee a metal 'arrow' flying at high speed......nothing lethal about that.....ya right.So SPEED now kills. Ok Cops say it all the time. Put that arrow down and watch it. See how long it takes to jump up and kill something.:lol :lol :lol
You switched from guns to arrows now. You just can’t figure out what the issue is, or are trying to change it when cornered. I bet the latter.


I do think I have a better chance of surviving an assault if the attacker uses a hammer instead of a gun. The recent lawyer incident proves that wrong.





Very off topic. Banning Fox hunting is about the cruelty of a pack of dog ripping a fox apart alive.
It's not a sport, for it requires no skill of physical labor. Very On topic actually. It’s called making a point. Try it some time.
You are ignorant here as well. Dogs require training to hunt {at least here}. Horsemanship is not inborn either. But you missed the entire point so it’s clearly over your head. Let’s move on.




So what, in the US at the time it was illegal for a black man to own a handgun.
Really? Well could have fooled me. THEY DID. FLASH!!

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney announced that blacks were not citizens; if they were, he warned, there would be no legal way to deny them firearms[60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857).] Thus once citizens, they could not be barred.

In response to the black codes, the Republican Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing to all citizens, freedmen included, their national constitutional rights, especially the right to bear arms. Said Rep. Sidney Clarke of Kansas, during the debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, "I find in the Constitution of the United States an article which declared that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' For myself, I shall insist that the reconstructed rebels of Mississippi respect the Constitution in their local laws."

During the Jim Crow era around 1900, when racial oppression was at its peak, several states enacted handgun registration and licensing laws. As one Florida judge explained, the laws were "passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . [and] never intended to be applied to the white population."[Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 450 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (Buford, J., concurring specially).]So by law they were allowed to own them but some by law were priced out for racist reasons. So it’s actually YOUR side that is to blame for banning them. They were the gun controllers then. Why adopt their methods? {Not calling you a racist so don’t go there].

Black litigants have gone to federal court in Maryland and won permits after proving that a local police department almost never issues permits to blacks.[Clark v. Gabriel, civil action no. M-75-581 (D. Md., Dec. 13 1976), cited in Paul Blackman, "Carrying Handguns for Personal Protection," paper presented at the 37th annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Diego, November 13-16, 1985, p. 6.]

THAT is the point. They used the tactics that the Nazis adopted and now you all want to use.

[QUOTE]And you took a lot over form the Nazi, like you large interstate highways were based upon what the Nazi's did in their country.
Does this make them (interstate highways) evil? The highway concept was not a Nazi idea. They got to it first is all. The stukas dive bomber was originally a U.S. navy design. They beat us to that as well. The highways are to free up people and movement. The gun laws were clearly just Theo posit so stop with the apples and oranges comparing. See also above.

[DEAD ZONE]

Tig

Good dig into Moore. i dont buy his lines in a lot of it but some of it was good.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


You just demonstrated how horribly little you know about the Netherlands. We don't have "an all-powerful Central Government." I'm sad to have to break that news to you.

Well then... so you don't have an all-powerful central government?

To tell you the truth, I seem to remember something about Dutch "cantons"... [although that could be a dim recollection of information on some other insignificant country...Switzerland, perhaps? :lol:] but you are right-- I don't have any idea what kind of separate local/regional/national governments you may or may not have. Nor do I care.

Why is it that YOU are always the one to tell us how WE should restructure OUR government? Because some social engineering policies may have had some degree of success in your little corner of the world, do you really have the arrogance to think that you have some kind of exclusive oracular information to hand down to we ignorant Colonials? :rolleyes: :lol:

For your information: harmonizing laws is different from imposing a law from above. In the first case, states adapt their specific laws to the laws elsewhere, therefore creating state legislation that is more or less similar throughout the nation. In the second case, the federal government imposes one law that applies to the entire nation. Your notion of harmonization is utterly inconsistent with reality.

I'll type it again, Phreak... we don't WANT to "harmonize" our laws... even by using your faulty definition. We are content to leave all that law harmonizing to you hummer-harmonizing Socialists!!:lol :lol :wave

You'll never understand America until you finally get here and see the vastness of our country and diversity of our people. But of course, that clear-to-the-bone ignorance will never dissuade you from offering a stuffed-shirt opinion on all things American, will it?

:sleep

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
[B]So SPEED now kills. Ok Cops say it all the time. Put that arrow down and watch it. See how long it takes to jump up and kill something.
I used 'arrow' as a other word for bullet. Because you seem to think that bullets are innocent and harmless.

energy = mass * velocity squared.

It's the energy of the bullet that determains how far it goes and how well it penetrates and how much damage it does(disregareding the shape for now).


ps. You can still kill people with non-lethal ammo because of this.



The recent lawyer incident proves that wrong.
Can you give me a link?


The highway concept was not a Nazi idea. They got to it first is all. The stukas dive bomber was originally a U.S. navy design. They beat us to that as well. The highways are to free up people and movement.
Yes it was, they used them for large scale transport. After WW2 you guy thought it was a pretty nice idea and used it.

So in short: A good idea is a good idea no matter were it comes from.

[DEAD ZONE]

[i]Originally posted by AWPrime
I used 'arrow' as a other word for bullet. Because you seem to think that bullets are innocent and harmless.

energy = mass * velocity squared.they are harmless. Only when fired are they potentialy dangerouse.You soad guns were dangerouse,then arrows now bullets. Make up your mind what you want to deal with will you please.


It's the energy of the bullet that determains how far it goes and how well it penetrates and how much damage it does(disregareding the shape for now).Not exactly. thats just part of it. the wing and atmospheric conditions do and the aim is most important of all.


ps. You can still kill people with non-lethal ammo because of this.You can kill people with darn near anything.You can strangle some one with your underware if you wante to.

EEEWWWWWW!!!

"Our eyes and hands and feet will give us the same assistance in doing mischief as in
doing good; but it would not therefore be better for the world, that all mankind were
blind and lame. Arms are not to be laid aside by honest men, because carried by
assassins and ruffians; they are to be used the rather for this very reason." -George
Campbell





Can you give me a link?
Where have you been.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031101/ap/d7uhs1480.html


Yes it was, they used them for large scale transport. After WW2 you guy thought it was a pretty nice idea and used it.

So in short: A good idea is a good idea no matter were it comes from. [/B]No they did not. The idea and who uses it first are not the same thing.

Such a basic concept . I think I am with sin. You are really waisting my time now.

see ya :wave

[sinecure]

Originally posted by AWPrime
I used 'arrow' as a other word for bullet. Because you seem to think that bullets are innocent and harmless.

energy = mass * velocity squared.



AW's physics is as faulty as most of the other "thinking" coming from his/her keyboard...

For an object that is moving the kinetic energy equals one half times the mass of the object times the square of the speed of the object. In symbols:

EK = (1/2)mv²

[AWPrime]

Wunch, I did simplyfied it a bit for DZ, so that he could understand the principle.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
[B]they are harmless. Only when fired are they potentialy dangerouse.
Translation: Bullets are only dangerous when used.


Where have you been.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031101/ap/d7uhs1480.html
That the lawyer didn't die was because of medical technology not becuase of those 'harmless' bullets.

DZ -> Never bring a hammer/knive to a gun fight.


The idea and who uses it first are not the same thing.
Finally you agree with me! Gun registration can't be considerd 'evil' because the nazi's used it.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by sinecure
Well then... so you don't have an all-powerful central government?

We indeed don't. The US has delegated the power to the states, which is historically defined. The states were the key players in the American history. Dutch history is different. We haven't delegated the power to the states (or provinces), but to the communities. That too has been historically defined (or developed, if you will). The cities were already important in a time modern nations didn't exist, when the power in Europe was in the hands of counts, dukes, bishops, archdukes, princes and many more who rivalled and allied with each other as they pleased and saw fit. I won't bother you with a synopsis of Dutch history (or of any other nation or country in Europe).

Why is it that YOU are always the one to tell us how WE should restructure OUR government?

And you think I haven't said anything about Dutch government/politics? The fact that I have said more about American politics than about Dutch politics is simply because there are far more threads about the US than about the Netherlands. In some cases, they are threads I myself have started, in other cases they are not. I have dealt with American politics because that is what has come up. If you want me to talk about Dutch politics (what is it like now? what should be changed? what shouldn't be changed? etcetera), I am more than willing. But I'm still waiting for the first true discussion (there have been plenty of news briefings so far, but no discussion) about Dutch politics. I could ofcourse discuss it in Dutch with Zandi, Menacem, Enforcer and Aw, but I don't think you would understand much of it :wink

your faulty definition.

My faulty definition? Encarta defines harmonize as to make rules, regulations, or systems similar or in accord with each other. Webster's Revised Unabridged (1913) defines harmony as To reconcile the apparent contradiction of. The Cambridge Dictionary of American English defines harmony as a pleasing combination of different parts.
You seem to think that harmonization means that everything has to be the same. And although that is certainly possible when laws are harmonized, that is not what is meant by the term. The term harmonization simply means that two or more pieces of legislation are adapted to one another. This does not mean that they have to be the same. This simply means that one piece of legislation takes (the effects of) another piece of legislation (or other pieces of legislation) into consideration. I never said that the US should have one law, ordained by the federal government.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister

We haven't delegated the power to the states (or provinces), but to the communities.

So your "communities" are much like tiny states? All "harmonized" under what? A central government?



My faulty definition? Encarta defines harmonize as to make rules, regulations, or systems similar or in accord with each other. Webster's Revised Unabridged (1913) defines harmony as To reconcile the apparent contradiction of. The Cambridge Dictionary of American English defines harmony as a pleasing combination of different parts.

Compare that rather complex sentence of yours with the one that follows it:


You seem to think that harmonization means that everything has to be the same.

Well, as a matter of fact, Phreak-- yes I do. ...and apparently, so does Encarta and Webster...! [Cambridge is off in a place all their own, as usual.] :p

While I'm not getting paid to teach you English, in the spirit of international cooperation, I'll try to correct your more blatant gaffes. :wink :wave :lol :lol

[sinecure]

A well-deserved pat on the back to Fox News for having the guts to print this piece:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103454,00.html

an excerpt:

The bans have now been in effect for almost a decade, without any evidence of any benefits. Increased crime is not the biggest danger arising from not extending the law. Politicians who have claimed such dire consequence from these mislabeled “assault weapons” have put their reputations on the line. If the extension fails, a year after that voters will wonder what all the hysteria was about.

Fueled by false images of machine guns and sniper rifles, the debate next year is likely to be very emotional. Let’s hope that the politicians at least learn what guns are being banned.

[Shilar]

Sorry for the long wait for a reply:

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Does the right of decent people to keep and bear arms mean that the issue is a taboo, and that nothing can or should be done to regulate (not ban!) the possession of firearms? What is more important or vital to a society: everyone having arms, including those not worthy of possessing them, or those worthy of owning arms having to take some effort in order to prevent that everyone, good and bad, can possess arms? An outright ban of arms may not be right, and it may infringe upon the right of the decent, but does that mean that nothing should be done? Just about anything is regulated, why not arms? Arms don't deserve an overly negative treatment, but why do they deserve an overly positive treatment?



Jack the Ripper...

If you want regulate, make it as simple as paying a fee (small one at that) to gain firearms as a liscense, and allow them to check your fed and state records. This would take care of ANY problems when you go out and buy one. Just run the card, and when it clears (like with a DL), you get your firearm. Right now, you have to fill out papers, and then WAIT for a firearm. The former the only best way to do anything, and allow the choice of purchasing and keeping your firearms without a wait.
Now, before you say that "What about the angry/ticked off/etc people?" let me point this out: If I was angry to the point of killing someone, would I need a gun? There are more ways, most very easy, to kill, so waiting 3 days for a gun wouldn't stop me from murder. Ask Jack the Ripper (which is right, congrats! :) )

[AWPrime]

It would be harder and therefore you would have killed less people.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by AWPrime
It would be harder and therefore you would have killed less people.

Sorry, 95% of gun buyers already have several at home. This theory just does not wash. :)

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Shilar


If you want regulate, make it as simple as paying a fee (small one at that) to gain firearms as a liscense, and allow them to check your fed and state records.

Well... now we're back to whether firearms possession is a RIGHT or not.

You see.... you don't NEED any "license" and don't HAVE TO PAY any "fee" to exercise a RIGHT.

The concept just isn't all that difficult to grasp, but it can surely spark a lively discussion! :wave

[sinecure]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms


Sorry, 95% of gun buyers already have several at home. This theory just does not wash. :)

GASP!!!.... You mean you have more than ONE gun? Shocking!!

Why does anybody NEED more than one gun?

:wave :lol :lol :lol :wink

[Enforcer]

Ive read the first few pages, but not the rest.
here are my thoughts

If no-one buys guns, no-one else needs them.

Thusly, the less people buy guns, the less poeple need guns.
(and less will be made, thusly increasing prices, again lowering demand)

I'd rather be shot then shoot.violence is not the answer (no its not a question to which the answer is yes either) and

guns dont kill poeple, poeple WITH guns kill poeple.
poeple without guns don't or do it less

as a conclusion, I think it's REALLY SAD that we would need guns at all and I think it really is true that if you want to improve yourself

JUST SAY NO TO SMOKING............GUNS

[Ateo]

How about this. Tighten up background checks so that it's no more difficult to buy and use a gun than it is to operate an automobile. Then make private gun sales illegal across the board & ban gun shows.

That way, you can own a gun(s) if you want to, but you'll have to buy it through a licensed dealer. You'll have nothing to complain about (unless you have a criminal record--your fault--or you're up to no good), and society will be inarguably safer.

[Shilar]

Originally posted by tigsnort
How about this. Tighten up background checks so that it's no more difficult to buy and use a gun than it is to operate an automobile. Then make private gun sales illegal across the board & ban gun shows.

That way, you can own a gun(s) if you want to, but you'll have to buy it through a licensed dealer. You'll have nothing to complain about (unless you have a criminal record--your fault--or you're up to no good), and society will be inarguably safer.

Problem with this is that it only effects law-abiding citizens, not criminals. I can easily go a few miles away, and buy a gun from a backwater dealer, with no liscense, and no background check. I don't even have to leave home to buy an M-16, within operable specs, and the ammo to use it, without the checks or the dealer creds. Any laws made to restrict or regulate gun use ONLY effects those willing to obey same.

[Enforcer]

Originally posted by Shilar


I don't even have to leave home to buy an M-16, within operable specs, and the ammo to use it, without the checks or the dealer creds. Any laws made to restrict or regulate gun use ONLY effects those willing to obey same..

*agrees*

a friend of mine was giving me a list of prices of guns he could buy on the internet.(not by site by email, so i guess you dont know if he'd ever even get the gun, but still)

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
How about this. Tighten up background checks so that it's no more difficult to buy and use a gun than it is to operate an automobile. Then make private gun sales illegal across the board & ban gun shows.

That way, you can own a gun(s) if you want to, but you'll have to buy it through a licensed dealer. You'll have nothing to complain about (unless you have a criminal record--your fault--or you're up to no good), and society will be inarguably safer.

I have a right to own a gun. [something about "keep and bear..." as I recall:wink ] I also have a right to own a car [personal property and all that] and I can drive it on my own or, with permission, on somebody else's land all I want, and in any manner I want [think racetracks]... but that's where the similarities end. You do not have a right to drive a car on a public highway-- it's been found time and time-again to be a privlege. The car~gun comparison, no matter how popular with the anti-rights folks... it just doesn't wash.

..and I think that Governmental registration, licensing, fees, taxes, record-keeping, and several thousand laws delineating how, where, and when I am allowed to use...all regarding my vehicles.. well, that amounts to an "infringement"... wouldn't you say?

So, no... I won't agree that the Government can infringe upon my RIGHT to own a gun.

Guns are private, personal property... small machines that throw tiny metal pellets at fairly high velocities. Why should the Government be allowed to tell me how I must buy or sell them? It isn't the Government's business WHAT I do with them as long as it's legal.

And Shilar's point should be well-taken. Laws don't affect criminals... by very definition.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
Guns are private, personal property... small machines that throw tiny metal pellets at fairly high velocities. Why should the Government be allowed to tell me how I must buy or sell them? Because they're dangerous lethal weapons.

[Shilar]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Because they're dangerous lethal weapons.

So are cars, knifes, drills, hammers, axes, etc, most I don't have to register and have a license to operate. And again, like stated, it's easy to get a gun without any check or license.

[Enforcer]

So are cars, knifes, drills, hammers, axes, etc,

they werent made for the purpose of hurting poeple/other living creatures

[Ateo]

...and round and round we go...

[Enforcer]

didnt read whole topic

been there, done that?

[Shilar]

Originally posted by Enforcer

they werent made for the purpose of hurting poeple/other living creatures

Want with a purpose? Swords, Slingshots, bows (and crossbows), throwing stars, daggers, quarterstaff. What if I only use the gun for firing at a target? Maybe I would like to win prizes for shooting clay pidgeons, or blowing away a star at a fair. That's not hurting people (save maybe noise pollution ;) ).

[Enforcer]

the once with a purpose shouldnt be sold either if you ask me. They can eb in a museum, as can guns be. Cuz theyre supposed to be a thing of the barbaric past.
Target practice is to improve your skill with a weapon. The only reason to do that is to either be able to shoot poeple/animals better or to show off. both (if you ask me) arent worth making guns available to just anyone

[DustyBottoms]

Guns are fun! :)

Gun are used to defend us from all those bad guys. :)

[Ateo]

I'll just give my opinion here...even though this ground has been trod over about as much as the rug in front of Madonna's bedroom door...guns are special because their sole purpose is to kill and/or maim, and they make it effortless to do so. Point, pull a trigger = death. With baseball bats, knives, slingshots, or whatever, work, effort and focus is required. Guns are the "fast-food weapon". Deadly and quick. Therefore, due to the sheer ultra-danger factor, they need to be regulated better.

[Enforcer]

i will see you tig and raise you a "yay!"

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
I'll just give my opinion here...even though this ground has been trod over about as much as the rug in front of Madonna's bedroom door...guns are special because their sole purpose is to kill and/or maim, and they make it effortless to do so. Point, pull a trigger = death. With baseball bats, knives, slingshots, or whatever, work, effort and focus is required. Guns are the "fast-food weapon". Deadly and quick. Therefore, due to the sheer ultra-danger factor, they need to be regulated better.

OK, Tig... lets buck-up and do this one more time...:lol :wink

Say you've got some 6'5" 300 lb muscle-bound Steroid Stallion who thinks you have somehow done him wrong [let your imagination run wild here :question ] and he picks up an... oh let's say...a razor-sharp ADZ from your supply of woodworking tools and, cornering you in your workshop, makes it perfectly clear that he intends to hollow you out like a canoe.

What is the best, most rational thing for you to do? You have the following implements available--

Another sharp adz.

A crosscut hand saw.

A framing hammer.

50-feet of 3/8" nylon rope.

A Glock model 21, .45 acp caliber handgun with 13 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber.

A can of spraypaint.

An extension telephone and a cellular phone.

The enraged guy is coming closer....

What's your first move?

[Enforcer]

pick the spraypaint!you know you want to...

[Ateo]

Of course I'd use the gun to defend myself--if I had one close to my workbench...which would indicate I was a little paranoid...but yeah, I'd use it. And if I had to jump through a few hoops to buy it in the first place, what difference would it make?

Let's turn your argument around, Sin. Let's say you're in a convenience store buying a slurpee. A thug walks in intent on robbing the cashier, and maybe taking your wallet, at any cost in order to get his daily fix. You don't have a gun or any kind of weapon. Since you value your life, do you think you'd have a better chance of getting out of there alive if the thug had A) a baseball bat/knife/rolling pin/brass knuckles/slingshot, etc... or B) a gun?

[weldordave]

Some people, me, never go anywhere unarmed. Just because of this scenario. Paranoid? Yes....of becoming a crime statistic. Deadly force is legal to stop the commission of a felony. Armed Robbery is a felony. I would then sue the criminal's mother for hatching, or crapping out such a piece of sh1t and endangering society, send a bill to the police for doing their job, a bill to the city for the cost of the bullet, lobby the Governor for a special citizens award, and bill the US Treasury for "gene pool cleaning".:lol

[DustyBottoms]

Firearms ownership
A lesson in reality.

Lets get real. How many stores are robbed with an axe?

Any criminal that wants a gun will get one no matter how many restrictions are put on law abiding citizens.

How? They will steal one or get one of the 273 million already in circulation.

As I stated before, The people that want guns already have several. (the smart ones)

Never get into a gun fight with a knife. :lol :wave :lol

Some statistics...

United States population...273,000,000

[U.S. Census Bureau]



Firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned by civilians...235,000,000

[Industry and other estimates]

How much has this increased in the past 40 years?...tripled

[Combination of sources cited by Kleck in Targeting Guns (1997)]



What fraction of U.S. households owns firearms?...42%

What fraction of U.S. residents owns firearms?...28%

[Davis and Smith, General Social Surveys, 1972-1993, all figures]



Accidental, suicide, and homicide deaths by firearm
Total accidental deaths per year (all causes), U.S....96,000

Motor vehicle accidental deaths per year...43,000

Fatal firearms accidents per year...1,100

(The firearms accidents figure is an all-time low, even though the U.S. population is at an all-time high, and gun ownership is at an all-time high.)


:lol :wave :lol

[Enforcer]

DON'T FACE REALITY AS IF IT'S A C C E P T I B L E THAT ANY THUG CAN BUY A GUN!
CHANGE IT.
START WITH YOU.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Enforcer
DON'T FACE REALITY AS IF IT'S A C C E P T I B L E THAT ANY THUG CAN BUY A GUN!
CHANGE IT.
START WITH YOU.

Please don't yell. I have sensitive hearing.

Probably a waist of time to explain, but I was referring to the 1/4 billion guns already in circulation in the USA.

As for me - I probably have 25 guns in my safe - one withing easy reach in my bedroom - and my trusty glock for travel.

You are the one that needs to face reality. :smash

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
Lets get real. How many stores are robbed with an axe?

And how many innocent home woodworkers are attacked by Ahhnold clones weilding Adzes?? Come on, we're playing hypotheticals here.Any criminal that wants a gun will get one no matter how many restrictions are put on law abiding citizens.

How? They will steal one or get one of the 273 million already in circulation. Crimes where unregistered or stolen guns are used would decrease if private gun sales and gun shows were outlawed. Plain and simple fact. Many people buy guns privately in order to avoid the registration process. Same with gun shows.

[Enforcer]

see the "don't" part

dont "face" reality. change reality.(like i said starting with yourself)

[sinecure]

No, Tig, my point in my little set-up scenario is that I agree with some points you made in your previous post--

Originally posted by tigsnort
..guns are special because their sole purpose is to kill and/or maim, and they make it effortless to do so. Point, pull a trigger = death. With baseball bats, knives, slingshots, or whatever, work, effort and focus is required. Guns are the "fast-food weapon".

Apparently, you instinctively grasp the utility of a gun as well as most criminals... as an "equalizer" in some instances, as a means of "force superiority" in others.

Paranoid?? Perhaps... with damn few exceptionsI haven't been more than a step and an arm's reach away from some sort of firearm since I was a teenager... and that's a long time. Is it some sort of talisman that will keep me from harm? No... but it provides me the means to stop wrong actions by bad people.

Now to further the discussion:... you seem to think that "control" [registration, banning, regulation of types/features/etc.] of guns is a worthwhile venture for government to get into. Can I assume you believe this will enhance the "safety and security" of the general populace?

Have the lessons of the past 10 years or so been completely lost on you?


Let’s pause to remember just a few of the gimmicks and schemes Bill Clinton, that so-called Southern Good Ole Boy, used to destroy the rights of gun owners.

1. Clinton directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta to create a whole department to study guns and gun violence as if they were a disease. This, like his effort to give regulatory power over guns to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, were to lay the basis for banning and restricting firearms as a public health and safety measure. (The CDC study of “children” harmed and killed by guns became notorious when scholars noticed that it had defined “children” as anyone up to 22 years of age – this to jack up the statistics with dead and wounded 17-21-year-olds, mostly victims of inner city drug turf wars, while pretending that these were infants.) This could also open the door to thousands of lucrative lawsuits by Democrat-supporting trial lawyers, cities, and leftist groups-- including the NAACP. .

2. Clinton sought to outlaw possession of any firearm within 1,000 feet (roughly one-fifth of a mile) of any school. But in most cities almost everyplace [my home included] is within that distance of a school, public or private. Anti-gun activists even tried to invoke home schooled kids (whom they otherwise despise) as a way of banishing guns from large areas of cities and suburbs.

3. Clinton closed large amounts of federal land to firearms, whether for target shooting or hunting. The unstated idea was: If there is no place to enjoy shooting, there will be far fewer people interested in ti.

4. Clinton diverted $45 million in taxes paid by gun owners from its designated “sportsmen’s trust fund” to other uses, including funding of an environmental group and turning previous hunting land into a wildlife preserve where hunting was prohibited.

5. Clinton promoted laws that made those convicted of misdemeanors, not just felonies as previously, ineligible to purchase firearms. He also encouraged legislation to make those merely accused of violence – e.g., a man accused but not convicted of spousal abuse by his wife – ineligible to possess or buy a gun, a measure that where enacted made it illegal for many serving police officers to possess or buy firearms. Guns already owned were to be surrendered to the police and destroyed.

6. Clinton demanded the outlawing of “cop-killer bullets” and firearms able to penetrate bullet-proof vests. By definition, this would outlaw virtually every hunting rifle and cartridge. The NRA opposed the law as written, and assisted in writing another law which was to the point. As a reault, the NRA will forever be demonized by the liberal media as "against the banning of 'cop-killer' bullets." Clintonistas also waged a hate campaign in the leftist media against “Black Talon,” bullets designed to fragment on impact. Feverishly depicted as ghoulish weapons to maim and mutilate those shot, the bullets in fact were designed, for safety, to stay WITHIN a target rather than penetrating completely through. Sen. Moynahan went on TV to describe how these bullets would "cut through a policeman's "bulletproof" vest like a buzzsaw." Patently untrue, but so typical of the relentless Clinton/liberal hate propaganda against firearms.

7. Clinton banned imports of more than 50 models of modified “assault rifles,” i.e., ordinary semi-automatic rifles stylized to resemble military guns. He also restricted the magazine capacity of any firearm to 10 rounds. (But after it gave huge donations to the Democratic Party, he did allow Communist China to export one of its "assault rifles" into the United States for sale.)

8. Clinton launched a full regulatory and IRS attack on one gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, leaving it only two choices – to go bankrupt or to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration in which the company complied with a wide range of the greatest regulatory fantasies of gun controllers. Had Gore been elected President, this outrageous political use of government tax and regulatory power would undoubtedly have been used against all gun makers and importers, one by one, in order to drive them out of business.

9. Clinton signed a new gun control law that required background checks for long guns [rifles/shotguns] as well as handguns – the first time these hunter weapons had been so thoroughly regulated by the federal government. This new law, however, included a provision requiring that once background checks approved a gun buyer, the federal computer record of the purchase be erased. Clinton quietly directed federal agencies to violate this law by retaining electronic records of who had purchased what gun – thereby illegally implementing de facto national gun registration of new firearms purchasers. [Has Bush completely eradicated these illegal records by Executive Order? I don't know]

This list of Clinton depredations on gun owners, buyers, sellers and makers could go on for dozens, even hundreds, of pages. It is transparently clear that Bill Clinton and Al Gore wanted Americans disarmed, all the better to make them submissive to and dependent upon government. (The Clintons and Gore, meanwhile, gave anti-gun speeches while surrounded by Secret Service agents armed with fully automatic weapons. Why did they not lead by example and disarm their bodyguards?)

"To any devoted Liberal, government is the one and only answer for everything. Self-defense and our inherent right to it are not conducive to being dependent on government. In the Liberal ideal, the average person is better off being more dependent on the government. Anything that lessens our dependence on government is the sworn enemy of liberalism." - Doug Hagin

You see, in a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim.

Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be brought against me if I discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me those very rights for fear I might misuse them.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

And how many innocent home woodworkers are attacked by Ahhnold clones weilding Adzes?? Come on, we're playing hypotheticals here.Crimes where unregistered or stolen guns are used would decrease if private gun sales and gun shows were outlawed. Plain and simple fact. Many people buy guns privately in order to avoid the registration process. Same with gun shows.

Don't like my hypothetical?? OK... substitute an iron pipe, stick of wood, fists, or anything else. Are you convinced of your compentency to handle any and all aggressors, armed or not? How about say 40 years from now... when you have some "seasoning" and you are met with a 20-year-old who wants your welfare check? [actually, I'm hoping that you get with the program and make enough money thatr you won't BE on welfare! :p :wink ] Will you be able to handle the situation then? Wouldn't a gun be effective in helping you keep the aggressor away from you?

Been to a gunshow? Do you actually KNOW what goes on there? While they aren't exactly MY favorite things to attend anymore [too many folks selling beef jerky and "crafts"... and not enough guns :)] I realize that it would be a spooky place for you... surrounded by thousands of various evil GUNS!

Many people believe that the government has no business knowing whether they own a gun or not. You see, it's a right. :)

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
you seem to think that "control" [registration, banning, regulation of types/features/etc.] of guns is a worthwhile venture for government to get into. Can I assume you believe this will enhance the "safety and security" of the general populace? [/B]Yes! And what's the big deal? The gov't regulates a lot of other dangerous stuff.

Fun fact:...according the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows are now the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigation. And it doesn’t stop with domestic criminals: AGS has uncovered cases in which known or suspected terrorists were able to obtain guns at gun shows.http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp
How about say 40 years from now... Will you be able to handle the situation then? Wouldn't a gun be effective in helping you keep the aggressor away from you?Yes, and I might buy one some day for that reason--seriously. I'm not really all that anti-gun anymore...I just don't like the NRA interfering with the ability of law enforcement to do it's job. The pro-gun activists are too blinded by their extremist ideology to see things clearly, and that makes them dangerous IMO.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Yes! And what's the big deal? The gov't regulates a lot of other dangerous stuff.

Fun fact:http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp
Yes, and I might buy one some day for that reason--seriously. I'm not really all that anti-gun anymore...I just don't like the NRA interfering with the ability of law enforcement to do it's job. The pro-gun activists are too blinded by their extremist ideology to see things clearly, and that makes them dangerous IMO.
Gun shows are where they sale guns. Since the only real other place is at a shop, it makes since that one of these two places will be a "leading source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigation". Just where else will you find them in numbers. Its this kind of twisting of common sense that gets tig and the anti-freedom group she cites called radicals, liars and the like.
Where else would you look for gun traficking, the dumpster behind denneys?:lol

At most 14% of all firearms traced in investigations were purchased at a gun show. But this includes just traced weapons, which overstates the acquisition rate.[BATF, June 2000, covers only July 1996 through December 1998.]

Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows.
39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers[Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, November 2001]

Less than 1% of “crime guns” were obtained at gun shows.
This is an improvement from an earlier study that found 1.7% - 2% of
guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows.[Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, 2001 &
National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study
released in December 1997 "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities"]

Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe that gun
shows are a problem.[Center to Prevent Handgun Violence survey of 37 police departments in large cities, reported in a CPHV report
titled “On the Front Line: Making Gun Interdiction Work”, February 1998]

93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun
stores or gun shows)[ BATF, 1999]

Terrorists dont need gun shows. They can get fully auto weapons much cheaper on the black market.

It takes only a moment's thought to recall that terrorists have numerous sources of armaments that are vastly superior in price, quality and selection to what can be obtained at American gun shows. One need see the sites deceptive agenda by looking at the reality of Americans for Gun Safety (AGS).
The important questions to ask are how many members have joined this organization, where does their money come from, and what is their interest in gun safety? The answer to the first question is easy. There are no members. AGS is a front organization for billionaire Andrew McKelvey, who likes to spend his money influencing public opinion. Choosing an issue to support was probably tough for a rich urban liberal like Mr. McKelvey. Many liberal issues involve restrictions on corporations and free markets, not the sort of thing his high society friends would approve of. Campaigning for tougher gun laws is the perfect solution. McKelvey is certainly aware that all the laws he is proposing will never affect his kind. No self-respecting billionaire would ever be seen looking for bargains at a gun show with all those icky working class peasants. No matter how strict gun laws become, the rich will always have easy access to guns. Their claimed interest in gun safety is also easy to explain. They really aren't interested in promoting gun safety at all. Their entire safety effort appears to consist of some simple advice on their web site. As far as I can tell, they have not sponsored a single gun safety or hunter's education class. All of their money goes into anti-gun advertising, other anti-gun organizations, or to support political candidates who are cozy with McKelvey.

. To better understand the disingenuous nature of this slick operation, visit their website (americansforgunsafety.org) and note the prominent opening claim that AGS "supports the rights of individuals who own firearms for sport, protection, and collection." Then view the page labeled "about AGS." Read the list of AGS priorities to see what they are actually doing. Don't hold your breath as you search for projects that actually support the rights of individuals. All you will find is a list of ways they are spending McKelvey's money in support of more laws to restrict gun rights, while doing absolutely nothing to defend them. The basic premise of AGS is therefore a deception. It is simply a unit of the anti-gun lobby operating under a false flag.
Dr. Michael S. BrownApril

[Ateo]

Also from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:In 1997, 14% of State inmates who had used
or possessed a firearm during their current
offense bought or traded for it from a retail
store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show.
Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a
firearm obtained the weapon from family or
friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon
from drug dealers, off the street, or through
the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained
their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other
type of theft. Looks like my proposition (banning gun shows & private sales) would address a good chunk of the problem...

Also:About a fifth of inmates with a military-style
semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon
bought it retail -- at a store, flea market, or
gun show. About a sixth of inmates with a
conventional semiautomatic weapon and an
eighth with a single-shot gun also had made
a retail purchase.

[DEAD ZONE]

Come to think of it, I seem to remember that the smuggler to lebanon actually did not get a single weapon from a gun show that he was seen smuggling .That is a very misleadding head line.

"an FBI informant previously had seen Boumelhem in Beirut unloading shipments of weapons and explosives," leaving the impression the weapons came from gun shows. Yet according to the Middle East Bulletin he was unloading "shipments of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers," none of which can be purchased legally in the United States. There is no truth when it comes to promoting an extremist gun control agenda.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0012_lb.htm

Does this not poin out that in these cases the illegal purchasers were apprehended and brought to justice under current law.

one was the IRA . same applies. Even terrorists laugh at the idea of getting guns at gun shows. Why pay high prices and risk it for a weapon that is inferrior to what they can and do get elswhere.

Red herring

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Also from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:Looks like my proposition (banning gun shows & private sales) would address a good chunk of the problem...

Also: Why must I have to repeat myself again.

14% of State inmates who had used or possessed a firearm during their current
offense bought or traded for it from a retail
store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show.
Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a
firearm obtained the weapon from family or
friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon
from drug dealers, off the street, or through
the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained
their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other
type of theft.

About a fifth of inmates with a military-style
semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon
bought it retail -- at a store, flea market, or
gun show. About a sixth of inmates with a
conventional semiautomatic weapon and an
eighth with a single-shot gun also had made
a retail purchase.

14%? What a needle in a haystack that is.

Notice the slick sly wording of tigs post. Traded does not mean legally. Bought does not mean legally. From a friend does not mean legally.
Combining categories to get a larger number looks impressive but is a smoke and mirrors trick. Any dealer has to do a background check. Only a private citizen or non dealer does not so the black market, drug dealer and possibly the Friend would already be covered by law. Another law is going to stop this how again?????????????


At most 14% of all firearms traced in investigations were
Purchased at a gun show. But this includes just traced weapons, which overstates the acquisition rate.[ BATF, June 2000, covers only July 1996 through December 1998.]
Keep this in mind also when such numbers and tactics as the above are used.
Most dealers at gun shows are licensed and must do background checks just like any other licensed dealer store. They have a show here every 3rd weekend of every month. There are cops there all the time walking the floor and at the front door. Do you really thing a crook is going to want to use such a show to get one???Why take that risk when a street buy is much safer.

Criminals aren't presently allowed to buy guns at gun shows because they aren't allowed to buy guns anywhere, ever. They aren't allowed to buy them in the black market, either - just like nobody is allowed to buy heroin: it's completely illegal. That they are able to do so by breaking the law is in no way served or defeated by your idea any more than someone is "permitted" to buy crack cocaine on a street corner. Both are criminal acts under federal law.
Given that the biggest percent of criminals are repeat offenders {somewhere around 70 to 75 percent}, the idea that these purchases were by average citizens with no previous record is idiotic.

Maybe if you stopped those useless and stupid gun buy backs that have the authorities operating, not only as fences for stolen weapons but as criminal aids by destroying a possible crime weapon no questions asked, you would actually do some good.
Anyway, you completely ignore the guns benefits.
Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.[Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology]

For every accidental death, suicide or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.[National Crime Victimization Survey, 1979-1985]

There are anywhere from 180,000 to 2 million defensive uses a year from guns. Keep all this in mind when the above numbers trickery is used for any "law" proposal.
This is relevant because the only way your idea would work is to ban the ownership all together.:rolleyes:

[DEAD ZONE]

Nevertheless

14% of State inmates who had used or possessed a firearm during their current
offense bought or traded for it from a retail
store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show.
Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a
firearm obtained the weapon from family or
friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon
from drug dealers, off the street, or through
the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained
their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other
type of theft.

About a fifth of inmates with a military-style
semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon
bought it retail -- at a store, flea market, or
gun show. About a sixth of inmates with a
conventional semiautomatic weapon and an
eighth with a single-shot gun also had made
a retail purchase.

Not only will your idea not work even a total ban would not work.
If you think people shouldn't own guns so criminals wouldn't have a source to steal them from, consider that 7 Texas inmates who escaped from prison stole the guard's weapons and were thus armed before they even left the prison. "Before they left the [prison watch-]tower, the inmates stocked the maintenance truck with 14 Smith & Wesson revolvers, a loaded Remington 12-gauge shotgun, a loaded air rifle, 238 rounds of ammunition and whatever food and supplies they found. " http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/21333.htm)

Guns are 13th Century technology - this genie is already out of the bottle. Even if all guns were to vanish in an instant, anyone with a lathe, mill, or even drill press could fabricate new ones shortly. You can guess that a thriving black market to do so would pop up as soon as guns had vanished from the hands of the law-abiding. Peasants in eastern Asian countries have turned out fully automatic AK-47's using cast receivers which were finished by use of hand tools. If such peasants can do it, do you think America can be made gun-free, even if all guns presently existing were to magically vanish?
In other words, the proposed laws can't do what you promise.

Fact is the military has a problem with weapons theft as does law enforcement.
Loose inventory controls are notorious in government agencies, as shown by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that has “misplaced” 539 weapons, including a gas-grenade launcher and 39 automatic rifles or machine guns. Six guns were eventually linked to crimes (two guns had been used in armed robberies, one confiscated in a raid on a drug laboratory and two others during arrests. One was being held as evidence in a homicide investigation). And in July of 2001, it was reported that the FBI lost 449 weapons, including machine guns.[Associated Press report, April 17, 2001]

There will always be a market and a supply. They even smuggle them in. Now in a nation that has a few million fire arms and is supposedly so easy to buy one in. Why would they need to smuggle them? It’s called supply and demand. I know that’s a hard concept but try and understand.


Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an assault
weapon.

“Assault weapons” were used in less than 2% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of
all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban.[Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994]

Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
For California:
• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved
an "assault weapon".
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons".
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were "assault
weapons".
For the rest of the nation:
• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault weapons".
• Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used “assault weapons”.
• Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons”.
More needle in a haystack approaches are not going to help.

[b]In Virginia, none of the inmates surveyed had carried an assault weapon during the
commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. [Criminal Justice Research Center, Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1994] .Note please what this says and then re-read tigs wording.

About a fifth of inmates with a military-style
semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon
bought it retail -- at a store, flea market, or
gun show. About a sixth of inmates with a
conventional semiautomatic weapon and an
eighth with a single-shot gun also had made
a retail purchase.

You need to define inmate. Just because they bought or had a gun in no way means the weapon had anything to do with the arrest or crime.

In 1994, you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by
an “assault weapon”. This was before the Federal assault weapons ban.[FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994]

43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all. Congressional testimony
documented that the large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. The BATF once prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment, thousands of American gun collectors became licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF claims not to have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reforms of the Federal Firearm Licensing program – mainly focused at small volume retailers and traders – produced no significant results in firearm crime rates.[Christopher Koper of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, reported in Criminology & Public Policy,American Society of Criminology, March 2002]

90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998]

Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.[FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994]

Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows.
39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.[Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, November 2001]
Notice that’s national not just a selected state to prove my point .In other words,
the proposed laws can't do what you promise.

[DustyBottoms]

A simple analogy:

Drugs are illeagal. Does anyone who wants drugs have a problem getting them? No....

Guns are legal (at least for now). Making them illegal is not a possibility due to the constitution. Restricting them is slowly making headway for the anti-gun liberals. Even if there are a multitude of restrictions we are left with "legal" to own by non-felons.

If the bad guy wants a gun - he will have a gun no matter how many waiting periods, gun shows are shut down, records are kept. computer data is collected or safety requirements are implimented. He will get a gun illegally. Just as a drug user gets his drugs.

As long as an honest citizen can end up legally with a gun, the bad guys will have a ready source.

The only way partially affect the access to criminals is to ammend the second ammendment and remove the right to own guns for all us citizens.

As Sin has statd repeatedly owning a cun is protected by the constitution.

Carry a loaded gun in a car = misdimener. 26.00 fine if caught - and loss of the gun. IMO is is a small price to pay to protect my family.

I learned my lesson when I went on my first trip in my new motorhome. We drove up to grants Pass OR to camp out on the Rogue river While stopped at a gas station, My wife was counting the tip money fron our band (This money was to pay for the vacation.) Wh had a lot of green (mostly ones) from tips we received While she was countin ti, a country boy walked in and asked if he could see the moterhome. He noticed the large pile of green on the table. I could not stop him as the gas tank was on the opposite side of the door.

I got to admit that big pile of ones looked very inpressive.

[DustyBottoms]

A simple analogy:

Drugs are illegal. Does anyone who wants drugs have a problem getting them? No....

Guns are legal (at least for now). Making them illegal is not a possibility due to the constitution. Restricting them is slowly making headway for the anti-gun liberals. Even if there are a multitude of restrictions we are left with "legal" to own by non-felons.

If the bad guy wants a gun - he will have a gun no matter how many waiting periods, gun shows are shut down, records are kept. computer data is collected or safety requirements are implemented. He will get a gun illegally. Just as a drug user gets his drugs.

As long as an honest citizen can end up legally with a gun, the bad guys will have a ready source.

The only way partially affect the access to criminals is to amend the second amendment and remove the right to own guns for all us citizens.

As Sin has stated repeatedly owning a Gun is protected by the constitution.

Carry a loaded gun in a car = misdemeanor. 26.00 fine if caught - and loss of the gun. IMO is is a small price to pay to protect my family.

I learned my lesson when I went on my first trip in my new motor home. We drove up to grants Pass OR to camp out on the Rogue river While stopped at a gas station, My wife was counting the tip money from our band (This money was to pay for the vacation.) We had a lot of green (mostly ones) from tips we received While she was counting, a country boy walked in and asked if he could see the motor home. He noticed the large pile of green on the table. I could not stop him as the gas tank was on the opposite side of the door.

I have to admit that big pile of ones (tips) looked very impressive.

These guys (there were two of them) had a gun mounted in the rear window of their pickup. I had our eating utensils, three young boys and a Labrador retriever to defend myself and family.

These guys followed me all the way to Grants pass and through Town till I parked in front of the police station.

It was at that point that I changed and decided to always arm myself. I still will take every precaution to make it to a police station, nut I feel much better knowing I have a defense against robbery and what ever else the guys had in mind.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Notice the slick sly wording of tigs post. That "slick sly wording" is from one of the exact same sources you previously cited. You're calling into question the veracity of the very data you used in your previous post. Thank you! :)
Not only will your idea not work even a total ban would not work. I think a total ban would be stupid, disastrous.

You really think that banning gun shows and private sales would have ZERO effect on the amount of guns that infiltrate into criminal areas of society? I think it would have a significant impact--and every little bit helps, right? Anything that makes society safer is good, right?

What would be the down side, anyway? People could still buy guns to their hearts' content, they'd just have to do it in accordance with the law.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

You really think that banning gun shows and private sales would have ZERO effect on the amount of guns that infiltrate into criminal areas of society? I think it would have a significant impact--and every little bit helps, right? Anything that makes society safer is good, right?

Oh yeah... IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN :rolleyes:

Hey... we could also enforce a national maximum speed limit of, say, 15 MPH... think of the lives we's save!! "Anything that makes society safer is good, right?"

What would be the down side, anyway? People could still buy guns to their hearts' content, they'd just have to do it in accordance with the law.

If the government has a list of gun owners, the next step is knocking on those doors and asking for them when they are made illegal. Not wild paranoia... California has provided a recent perfect example of the government registration "bait and switch". "Here, just register your "assault rifle" [their terminology, not mine]... you have nothing to worry about, we just want to know how many of them are out there." Then two years later... "Turn-in your registered "assault rifle", or be charged with a felony. Oh yeah... we won't reimburse you for the cost of the rifle, tough luck."

Nope.. I ain't falling for that crap again.

You see... laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen, RIGHTS remain.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
That "slick sly wording" is from one of the exact same sources you previously cited. You're calling into question the veracity of the very data you used in your previous post. Thank you! :)No it is not. That’s why you had those little snippets there instead of the entire point. You snipped {cherry picked} a bit that was out of overall context and misrepresented what it said .That was YOUR doing not the source. The source did not make the point with that info that YOU have promoted. My posts show that clearly. I should have made it elementary so you could grasp it. The slick "use" of wording by tig.

There, now get it?
that combuined trick is the oldest one in the book.thats why I posted the detailed break down from the same source. Thats where you screwd up

I think a total ban would be stupid, disastrous.

You really think that banning gun shows and private sales would have ZERO effect on the amount of guns that infiltrate into criminal areas of society? I think it would have a significant impact--and every little bit helps, right? Anything that makes society safer is good, right?

What would be the down side, anyway? People could still buy guns to their hearts' content, they'd just have to do it in accordance with the law. What you proposed is a total ban, You would have to because the demand is there and the sources you site {misrepresent} show that they are negligible in sources for criminals. It’s the illegal markets that are.

"Despite all the disinformation spread by the gun control
lobby, a gun show is really nothing more than people wishing to sell one or more firearms to others who wish to purchase (or simply to gaze upon) the merchandise. Most of the sellers are federally licensed dealers displaying their wares to prospective buyers outside their normal place of business.

"Anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms is required to be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,and Firearms (18 U. S. Code, Sect. 923(a)). According to federal law, dealer sales must be accompanied by an instant background check, regardless of the premises where the transaction takes place. Federal law does not allow any exceptions. If you are engaged in the business of selling firearms, then you have to fill out the federal paperwork, and then call the FBI to get permission for every sale. There is no gun show "loophole" which changes the rules."
David Kopel

Yes. Gun show bans would have no effect. Ever look in the news paper or on the internet? You can buy them there and it’s a lot easier. No cops walking around looking over your shoulder.

Sorry but I have shown that these are not major sources for weapons and despite assurances that it is merely to keep guns out of the hands of criminals which you can't do anyway given criminal sources of firearms from smuggling, the black market, and homemade guns. Prohibition did not work. Why do you want to pass such a criminal enriching idea again?

As mentioned before, there is no such loophole. Prohibited persons aren't "permitted" to buy guns at gun shows: it is illegal. That they are able to do so by breaking the law is no more of a loophole than that someone is "permitted" to buy crack cocaine on a street corner. Both are criminal acts under federal law. They simply shift to black market or straw man buys if they don’t smuggle them in or just make them themselves.
Are you seriously advocating that a criminal will walk into a place, see a need for a background check and just drop the entire idea? You are either deliberately insulting our intelligence, very naive or just plane ignorant.

Criminals are that just because that’s what they do. A little obstacle like that is not going to stop them and the low numbers that get them the way you want to ban makes that clear.

They already have to buy them in accordance to the law. The gun show dealers are mainly licensed and your idea is nothing more than an attempt to shut down that avenue of capitalism. An incremental destruction. The fact you keep making blatantly false statements like
What would be the down side, anyway? People could still buy guns to their hearts' content, they'd just have to do it in accordance with the law
makes that clear. THEY ALREADY HAVE TO DO THAT.

Most {darn near all} dealers at shows have to do background checks. They are licensed dealers and selling at a show is no different than at their store.

Whether people get guns from the paper, off the internet, in a parking lot or off the back of my truck has NOTHING to do with GUN SHOWS. Lay off the lie its getting old.

Your main beef is with private sales. Deal with that and stop being so ignorant about what a gun show is.

Here. One paragraph simplified for you:

There is no such loophole. The laws are the same at gun shows as everywhere else, namely, licensed dealers must conduct background registration checks, but private sellers do not. The media and Clinton like to say that gun shows are places where criminals are allowed to buy guns, bypassing the background checks needed at gun stores. But this is a lie: criminals aren't presently allowed to buy guns at gun shows because they aren't allowed to buy guns anywhere, ever. They aren't allowed to buy them in the black market, either - just like nobody is allowed to buy heroin: it's completely illegal. Furthermore, "closing the loophole" is sold to the public as, if it were done, criminals wouldn't be able to buy guns except on the black market. But even this is a lie: private sales advertised through the newspapers would still be permitted even if the "gun show loophole" bill were to be signed into law - meaning, there would still be a source of guns for criminals anyway. In other words, the proposed laws can't do what they promise. After the so-called "gun show loophole" bill passes into law, if it does, there will then be calls to close the "newspaper ad loophole" or "private sale loophole." Then, all firearms transactions will be registered with the government - but the black market will still exist. Finally, there will be the "private ownership loophole" - all transactions will already be registered with the government, but individual ownership will not be registered. When
This remaining "loophole" is closed it there will be full gun registration in America. Next stop:
Confiscation. (See: England, Australia, Nazi Germany, Canada, California, New York City.)It’s not paranoid, it’s documentable FACT.

[DEAD ZONE]

I think a total ban would be stupid, disastrous.

You really think that banning gun shows and private sales would have ZERO effect on the amount of guns that infiltrate into criminal areas of society? I think it would have a significant impact--and every little bit helps, right? Anything that makes society safer is good, right?

What would be the down side, anyway? People could still buy guns to their hearts' content, they'd just have to do it in accordance with the law. [/B]

Here, listen to one of your own anti-righters.

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." -- Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post


"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Sammy "The Bull" Gravano

Simply look at D.C. where they banned handguns all together. It not only does not stop the criminals, it emboldens them. It has a rate of crime higher than its neighbor that does not ban them.

Every little bit helps is a ploy used by tyrants and dictators. Especially when it’s shown to be negligible or futile all together to achieve what the one making the statement advocates.


Are our well-kept lawns worth the roughly 75 deaths each year from lawn mower accidents? Is the pleasure we get from dogs worth the roughly 25 people killed every year by dogs? Does high school football enrich young people¹s lives enough to justify the 15 student deaths every year in organized high school football? That's as many as are killed by guns in a typical school year!!

How about alcohol? Is its legalization worth the lives it takes? {Been there tried that does not stop a thing does it}.

These seem to be silly examples because most Americans believe that the benefits of each of these things greatly outweigh their respective costs. However, that assessment is a value judgment in which the pleasure of having a nice lawn, the security and companionship of having a dog, or the excitement of a high school football game is balanced against the lives that are inevitably lost through the exercise of those freedoms. Unfortunately, people will not admit that they have made a value judgment in which just one life did not prevail.
Even if lives would be saved by, say, even banning guns, the argument is bogus anyway: reducing the national speed limit to 5 MPH will save more than one life - but the neither the Million Moms nor even MADD is lobbying for this. Why is the argument for one life saved good enough to trample our right of self-defense, but not good enough to trample a non-existing right to travel at 60, 35, or even 15 MPH? Because the argument is bogus.

Rather than honestly admitting that they do not value the freedom being abridged, they pretend moral superiority by claiming to place a higher value on human life. Their charade is an attempt to bypass reasoned debate on the costs and benefits of the proposed action.
Beverage alcohol will always have a high cost in the life and health of any society. When America repealed Prohibition, we effectively declared that the value of our drinking pleasure is higher than the value of the lives lost to drinking. Most people will not express that idea this directly, but if we did not value drinking this highly, we would not tolerate beverage alcohol. I do not claim that we have made a wrong choice, but we should admit the choice that we have

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by sinecure
So your "communities" are much like tiny states?

In a way, yes.

All "harmonized" under what? A central government?

Yupp, and all with differing legislation. Some have legalized prostitution (e.g. Amsterdam), some have banned prostitution (e.g. Urk) and some have taken a position in the middle (e.g. Zwolle). Some have banned begging (e.g. Rotterdam), some have legalized begging (most communities) and some have taken a position in the middle (e.g. Groningen and Amsterdam).

Well, as a matter of fact, Phreak-- yes I do. ...and apparently, so does Encarta...

Oh does it? Let us recall the Encarta definition of to harmonize. Encarta defines to harmonize as to make rules, regulations, or systems similar or in accord with each other. The keyword in this sentence is similar. What does the word similar mean? According to Encarta itself, similar means alike: sharing some qualities, but not exactly identical. So Encarta itself defines to harmonize as to make rules, regulations, or systems [that share some qualities, but are not exactly identical to] each other. How can you say that it is my faulty definition? And how can you subsequently say that Encarta shares your definition of harmonization (unanimity)?

[DEAD ZONE]

How about these:

In order to severely discourage theft, inact a dual law that (a) imposes a mandatory three year prison sentence on anyone knowingly possessing a stolen gun; and (b) rebuttably presumes knowing possession if the defendant is found to have possessed two or more stolen guns. Faced with this, fences may stop buying stolen guns, thereby discouraging burglars from stealing them.

Require everyone who owns or wants to buy a gun to acquire a federal permit that would be available on proof that he/she was an adult without a felony record. But that is both politically and practically impossible. Gun owners, who are convinced that the anti-gun crusaders will eventually use permit records to confiscate all guns, would hysterically fight the law and, if it were enacted, would flout it en masse.Being as the anti-righters have admited thats their goal how about we have a criminal records check done with the driver's license. Every license issued would bear the notation "eligible to own firearms" (except, of course, for juveniles, felons and so on). Sale of a gun to a person without a driver's license bearing this notation would be a felony and also make the seller financially liable for any wrong the buyer did with the gun.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
I'll just give my opinion here...even though this ground has been trod over about as much as the rug in front of Madonna's bedroom door...guns are special because their sole purpose is to kill and/or maim, and they make it effortless to do so. Point, pull a trigger = death. With baseball bats, knives, slingshots, or whatever, work, effort and focus are required. Guns are the "fast-food weapon". Deadly and quick. Therefore, due to the sheer ultra-danger factor, they need to be regulated better.
First, this is flatly false; some guns were made for other purposes:

Some guns are made for target shooting; their purpose is to put holes in paper, not kill. "Yeah, but that's still destruction and damage." Paper punches and staplers were made for no other purpose than putting holes or pieces of metal through paper. If puncturing paper is evil, these things too must go (and before guns as there is no Constitutional right to own staplers or paper punches). Some guns are made to be taken to foreign countries every four years, such that the person doing so returns with discs of gold (or, possibly, silver or bronze). And this is considered to be a good thing - except in England. Some guns were made to be collected. Gold-inlaid, personally signed and numbered commemorative or anniversary issues of popular or historic guns are expensive and lose their investment value with use. Though they are functional and could be used to fire cartridges, they were most certainly not made to do this.
The fact that guns can kill makes them good at persuading. In something like 99% of the times guns are used by lawful citizens against a criminal perpetrator, they are not even fired; the perpetrator flees for his life, and the gun has served its purpose, to deter the criminal. If the only purpose of guns is to kill then why do on-duty cops carry them? Is it because their duty is to go around killing people? (Do they have quotas?) Or because they are effective crime deterrents and self-defense devices?

The only purpose of a gun is to kill. This is the basic principle underlying much of the gun control lobby's arguments and is used to justify some of the statistical manipulations they perform in order to support their case. Unfortunately for the gun control lobby, they are wrong. There are many people who buy guns with the intention of never using them to kill. Some people like to collect guns, especially those representing a specific era or time. Other people enjoy "plinking" or recreational shooting at non-living targets just as other people enjoy the practice of archery without every going bow-hunting or bow-fishing. Still other people like to shoot competitively. Some enjoy taking part in historical reenactments that involve firearms. Let us not forget those who purchase firearms purely for the purpose of protecting themselves. Many people are quite content to drive off an attacker using the mere display of a firearm, without ever actually firing it. There are many legitimate reasons for owning a gun that have nothing to do with killing. A gun is a tool used to shoot projectiles. What you shoot the projectiles at determines if there is any killing done. Your teeth were designed to tear flesh (and kill?) too BTW. A hammer can build homes or crush skulls.
I shoot more ammo in a month than all the crooks in all the crimes in this whole town (pop 500,000) do all year. Haven't killed a thing.
[“Knowledge is neither good nor evil, but takes its character from how it is used.] In like manner, weapons defend the lives of those who wish to live peacefully, and they also, on many occasions kill [murder] men, not because of any wickedness inherent in them but because those who wield them do so in an evil way."


Next time you see Olympic events involving guns, I want you to tell them they are to kill and ask the competitors haw many people they have killed. I have had guns all my life and none have killed anyone to date. {Only a few critters}.
...and round and round we go...

You got that right. Why do you make us have to repeat ourselves?

A gun does not fire without bullets. I can point one at you all day and pull the trigger. If no bullets, no problem. A gun does not guaranty a kill either.

Guns are inanimate objects that do not walk around and kill people on their own. This seems too stupid to bother pointing out - but some people just don't get it. Blaming guns for anything is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell for being fat, or blaming Jim Beam or Chevrolet for drunk drivers, or the Zippo Corporation for arson. MADD goes after criminals - drunk drivers - and not certain models of cars or brands of drinks. This is implicit acknowledgement that cars don't kill people, people kill people. Behaviors like firearms murder are already criminal - why isn't this good enough? Guns also save people, and gun control kills people. Setting the issue of rights aside, intellectual honesty requires considering whether guns in America are a net benefit or a net liability, not just considering the costs in the absence of the benefits. (Returning rights to the question forces one to consider the possibility that freedom, even if measurably less safe in the short term than serfdom, might still be preferable.)

[sinecure]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
How about these:

In order to severely discourage theft, inact a dual law that (a) imposes a mandatory three year prison sentence on anyone knowingly possessing a stolen gun; and (b) rebuttably presumes knowing possession if the defendant is found to have possessed two or more stolen guns. Faced with this, fences may stop buying stolen guns, thereby discouraging burglars from stealing them.

We already have "Receiving Stolen Property laws. How about making possession of a stolen gun a "hate crime"?? ;p

Require everyone who owns or wants to buy a gun to acquire a federal permit that would be available on proof that he/she was an adult without a felony record. But that is both politically and practically impossible. Gun owners, who are convinced that the anti-gun crusaders will eventually use permit records to confiscate all guns, would hysterically fight the law and, if it were enacted, would flout it en masse.Being as the anti-righters have admited thats their goal how about we have a criminal records check done with the driver's license. Every license issued would bear the notation "eligible to own firearms" (except, of course, for juveniles, felons and so on). Sale of a gun to a person without a driver's license bearing this notation would be a felony and also make the seller financially liable for any wrong the buyer did with the gun.

So... anybody who sees your license [cash a check, buy booze, rent a car, etc.] will know that you "made a boo-boo" or otherwise aren't 100%...

Privacy issues galore here.... but thanks for trying.:lol :lol :wave

[DustyBottoms]

If history is a teacher, then gun laws scare the heck out of me.:eek:


1-----Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up 13 million defenceless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition, destroyed them.

2-----The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, proceeding then to exterminate 1.5 million Armenians from 1914 - 1917.

3-----The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently from 1928 - 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

4-----China. Gun control laws were enacted in 1935. Between 1948 - 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were likewise murdered.

5-----In the United States the first gun control laws were enacted during the Civil War era to prevent guns from falling into the hands of black slaves who might be inclined to attack their masters and thereby keeping control in the hands of the latter.

6-----Guatemala. Gun control laws were passed in 1964: as a result, between 1964 - 1981, 100,000 defenceless Mayan Indians met their deaths.

7-----Uganda. Established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 - 1979, 300,000 defenceless Christians met a similar fate.

8-----Cambodia. Established gun control measures in 1956, subsequently from 1957 - 1977 one million Cambodians met their deaths.

9-----Closer to home, Indonesia, another Republic, has a similar record. Out of a population of just one million people in East Timor, 200,000 have been killed over the past twenty years until the recent bloodshed when it still unknown how many thousands more have been murdered. Being promised freedom these brave people elected to vote in a referendum during which the United Nations guaranteed their safety and still they died unarmed and defenceless.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
Guns are fun! :)

Gun are used to defend us from all those bad guys. :)

paranoia!

[AWPrime]

The right to have guns must have come in a fit of insanity.



ps. Woundn't you want gun control in Iraq and Afganistan?

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
There are many people who buy guns with the intention of never using them to kill. Some people like to collect guns, especially those representing a specific era or time. Other people enjoy "plinking" or recreational shooting at non-living targets just as other people enjoy the practice of archery without every going bow-hunting or bow-fishing. Still other people like to shoot competitively. Some enjoy taking part in historical reenactments that involve firearms. Do you know of any people who fit the above criteria who don't also keep a gun in their house for self-defense*?

*which does usually involve the intention to maim/kill

"Innocent" gun enthusiasts are usually also "defensive" gun owners. Nothing wrong with that. But dont try to tell me there are significant numbers of people who buy guns ONLY for their asthetic/sport value, and who otherwise would never THINK of using a gun to harm another human being.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Do you know of any people who fit the above criteria who don't also keep a gun in their house for self-defense*?

*which does usually involve the intention to maim/kill

"Innocent" gun enthusiasts are usually also "defensive" gun owners. Nothing wrong with that. But dont try to tell me there are significant numbers of people who buy guns ONLY for their asthetic/sport value, and who otherwise would never THINK of using a gun to harm another human being.

I think you missed the point, Tig...

There are many guns that are designed for uses other than "killing or maiming". Like a phillips screwdriver or ice pick that is used as a stabbing weapon, the initial design intent was something other than a "killing/maiming" weapon.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by AWPrime
The right to have guns must have come in a fit of insanity.



ps. Woundn't you want gun control in Iraq and Afganistan?

I ran across the best answer to your childish mewlings a few years ago... and found it again only recently--

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.
- Jack Nicholson A Few Good Men

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by sinecure


We already have "Receiving Stolen Property laws. How about making possession of a stolen gun a "hate crime"?? ;p



So... anybody who sees your license [cash a check, buy booze, rent a car, etc.] will know that you "made a boo-boo" or otherwise aren't 100%...

Privacy issues galore here.... but thanks for trying.:lol :lol :wave Worth a try. Not so good idea. Maybe we can ask at the time of the license if they want the green thing. Then if you see someone without it it does not necessarily mean anything.

Make the penalty for recieving stolen weapons DEATH!! That will work.Na. Bad idea.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


paranoia! 2 million factual paranoids . Read the definition of parnoid. You aint if they are really after you

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime
The right to have guns must have come in a fit of insanity.



ps. Woundn't you want gun control in Iraq and Afganistan? no and they tried. It clearly does not work does it?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Do you know of any people who fit the above criteria who don't also keep a gun in their house for self-defense*?

*which does usually involve the intention to maim/kill

"Innocent" gun enthusiasts are usually also "defensive" gun owners. Nothing wrong with that. But dont try to tell me there are significant numbers of people who buy guns ONLY for their asthetic/sport value, and who otherwise would never THINK of using a gun to harm another human being. there are colectors that do not have guns to shoot. Devalues them.

the guy across from me has a cousin that is like the above actually. He is huge.

No tig. The point is guns are not soley to maim and kill thats what you keep saying. Now you want to say that any one owning a gun for any purpose other than the above automatically makes all guns soley for killing?????????????????????????????

Pay attention to what you say.

I never said the last part at all. You said guns are only to kill. Its a flat out lie. the people kill and apparently you do get THAT now.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure


I ran across the best answer to your childish mewlings a few years ago... and found it again only recently--

----
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.
----



That's a laugh. Provide nothing, you force it.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


That's a laugh. Provide nothing, you force it. Then enjoy licking the boot of the tyrant that will be your master and dont cry to anyone when you have no freedom like you clearly do now.

If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our allie or freind in armed freedom."


Slightly modified from Samuel Adams

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1103/111537.html

Thank God for conceal carry laws.

It brings an end to the more than five week manhunt for Eizember, who faces two counts of first degree murder in the October 18th shooting deaths of A.J. and Patsy Cantrell of Depew.

He also faces one charge of shooting with intent to kill in the shooting of Tyler Montgomery and a charge of assault and battery with a deadly weapon in the beating of Montgomery's grandmother, Carla Wright.

An intense, three-week manhunt ended on November sixth when a thorough search of a wooded area near Bristow turned up nothing.


Should have used a bigger caliber.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
1-----Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up 13 million defenceless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition, destroyed them.

Gun control was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar government. Main goal of this was to disarm private armies, such as the SA. The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability and law and order to German society and politics. Gun control was not introduced for the Nazis. It was designed to keep the Nazis and other violent groups from starting a revolution against the government.

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich. However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of 1938 was created. The Nazis did not need gun control to attain power. In 1938 they already possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. It is said that the gun control of 1928 favored the Nazis by depriving private armies of a means to defeat them. The problem with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box. Besides that, gun ownership wasn't that widespread in 1928 to begin with. Furthermore, the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.
Hitler did not need gun control to maintain his power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling social and political chaos) and the abuse of the German justice system by the Gestapo assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. If one assumes an armed resistance existed, it would logically have to follow that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. The Nazis introduced gun control to created a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. This is not a normal part of lawful governance, since the Nazis had entirely demolished the rule of law in the Third Reich.

Then there is the issue of armed Jewish resistance which had allegedly been made impossible by gun control. Firstly, German jews weren't commonly armed even before 1928. Secondly, jews had seen and survived pogroms before. They would logically expect that this pogrom (the Holocaust) would eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy just as well. No jew could expect what occurred. They knew that many jews were taken away, they saw that happening every day. What they never knew, was where they were taken. Noone in Germany outside of the government and the armies involved knew of the existence of concentration camps. The jews in Germany simply didn't know what they had to fight against. Besides that, many jews considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. Like all Germans, they simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Thirdly, it is almost inconceivable that armed resistance by jews or any other target group would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion. It would more likely have strengthened the support the Nazis already had, as it would confirm the propaganda the Nazis told the German people about the danger the jews posed to Germany.

[DustyBottoms]

Gun control was not introduced for the Nazis. It was designed to keep the Nazis and other violent groups from starting a revolution against the government.

My point exactly. - It didn't work.:)

[AWPrime]

It did work.

They were forced to use the democratic election system.:)

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
My point exactly. - It didn't work.:)

Sadly, it did work. The Nazis didn't have to revolt, because they won the 1932 elections. The Nazis did try a revolution though, in 1923, before gun control. The "Beer Hall Putsch" in Munich failed, and in 1924, Hitler was sentenced to five years in prison. In prison, he wrote Mein Kampf.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Sadly, it did work. The Nazis didn't have to revolt, because they won the 1932 elections. The Nazis did try a revolution though, in 1923, before gun control. The "Beer Hall Putsch" in Munich failed, and in 1924, Hitler was sentenced to five years in prison. In prison, he wrote Mein Kampf. The first election they won seats. The next one they lost more than they won.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
The first election they won seats. The next one they lost more than they won.

In the first few elections the NSDAP participated in, they performed poorly, mostly due to the positive economic climate in the world in the 1920s. In 1928, the NSDAP managed to get only 2.6% of the votes. Then came 1929, when the economy plummeted downhill. In 1930, the NSDAP managed to grow to 18.3% of the votes. On July 31st, 1932, the NSDAP received 13,750,000 votes or 37.3% of the electorate. On November 6th, 1932, the NSDAP received 33.1% of the votes. On March 5th, 1933, the NSDAP received 43.9% of the votes. 4 Months later, on July 5th, 1933, all other parties were banned/cancelled, and on July 14th of that same year, the formation of new parties became outlawed, making the NSDAP the only remaining party in Germany.

[Shilar]

Originally posted by Enforcer
the once with a purpose shouldnt be sold either if you ask me. They can eb in a museum, as can guns be. Cuz theyre supposed to be a thing of the barbaric past.
Target practice is to improve your skill with a weapon. The only reason to do that is to either be able to shoot poeple/animals better or to show off. both (if you ask me) arent worth making guns available to just anyone

Oh, so you want my swords, knives, daggers, staves, etc taken away? Tell you what, you turn in your forks, steak knives (especially Ginsu knives), and meat tenderizers, and I'll consider it. All those easily become a dangerous weapon when used that way, and with your reasoning, should also be taken away.

Example for you: Back in mainland Asia a long time ago, there were many people out there with swords and quarterstaffs, though you'd never notice. Most were actually hidden, because the leaders banned any weapon of that type on the person, or in the home. Their staff was a walking stick, some katana blades looked like canes, heck, one blade (one that was a staff with a sword tip) was an adjustible scythe! All the blades were banned, but then the people came along and made weapons with a dual purpose.
Why I bring this up: Did you know guns can be done the same fashion? I can take a cane, and make a gun inside a detachable head. Even heard one guy who not have his firearm deteched by any metal detector because it was made of plastic (Two-shot gun). These are just homemade ideas, but even then, I can travel a few miles and buy a gun on the street, anything from a hunting rifle to an Uzi 9mm. Banning anything doesn't stop them, matter of fact, encourages them to proliferate.

"The best defense is a good offense" - Mel, the cook on "Alice"

[Shilar]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Do you know of any people who fit the above criteria who don't also keep a gun in their house for self-defense*?

*which does usually involve the intention to maim/kill

"Innocent" gun enthusiasts are usually also "defensive" gun owners. Nothing wrong with that. But dont try to tell me there are significant numbers of people who buy guns ONLY for their asthetic/sport value, and who otherwise would never THINK of using a gun to harm another human being.

I fit the criteria of the first (have an old .22 6-shooter, an antique from my great-grandmother, no other guns).

No legal people EVER go about pointing any weapon at another human being to hurt or kill. Thoughts aside, A typical "good guy" (IMHO) would not want to harm anyone, but anyone can be pushed/forced to use/want to use a weapon, especially in desense of themselves or loved ones. I have no desire to hurt anyone, but if I have to, I at least have the luxury of pulling a weapon out to protect friends and family, my property, or myself. That's human nature to want to defend something you hold dear, and when every second counts, you need a luxury to use.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.project-euh.com/threaten/mail-a-bullet

[sinecure]

"MAILING" bullets won't get the job done...

...just not enough velocity! :wink

[weldordave]

Originally posted by AWPrime


That's a laugh. Provide nothing, you force it.
So we gather that aw would rather be still under NAZI or SOVIET control. As were his forbearers. How dare the US allow his people to act on their own accord when they show such submissive tendicies as to be overrun and ruled by others.
It's amazing how big the Euro backbone grows when the US is there to thwart invasion and keep the peace. When the US goes away and they start killing each other again they will be whining for us(US) to save them once again.

[weldordave]

Originally posted by AWPrime
The right to have guns must have come in a fit of insanity.



ps. Woundn't you want gun control in Iraq and Afganistan?
Easy to speak out when you live under the great umbrella of protection that a country with alot of guns provide.

[weldordave]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Then enjoy licking the boot of the tyrant that will be your master and dont cry to anyone when you have no freedom like you clearly do now.

If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our allie or freind in armed freedom."


Slightly modified from Samuel Adams
Slightly modified, but still the same point. Franklin and the Boyz had it goin' on.:clap

[weldordave]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Noone in Germany outside of the government and the armies involved knew of the existence of concentration camps.
BULLSH1T! The smell of burning flesh wafting over the village, the 1,000's of people going in... 0 coming out.... OH YEA, they didn't know.:lol Germans and Euro's are REALLY THAT STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! Let me say it again...STUPID! Euro's do not know when MILLIONS are being burnt next door, but they sure know that the US is wrong to oust a genocide loving dictator like Saddam a half a world away. Phreak, your post is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That is why GEN. Eisenhower took your elder relatives for a tour of the camps and made them help clean up the mess that you Euro's created. If I had been there, I would have armed the survivors and told them to "go get some". The climate in Eurotopia would be much different after they annihilated the lay downs and made a survivor's Europe instead of having you lay downs have control again.
p.s Don't tell me of any relatives you had in the resistance. It seems all lay downs have some ties to the "resistance". It's just a fairy tale to ease the conscience of the guilty.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Sadly, it did work. The Nazis didn't have to revolt, because they won the 1932 elections. The Nazis did try a revolution though, in 1923, before gun control. The "Beer Hall Putsch" in Munich failed, and in 1924, Hitler was sentenced to five years in prison. In prison, he wrote Mein Kampf.

Hello!! When the Nazis were incinerating all the "now unarmed Jews" every citizen was also unarmed and unable to resist Hitler.

If the common German household was armed, It might have been a different story. Just a thought........:cool

[Enforcer]

*cries out loud*

ITS NOT FAIR!!!

in one corner we have poeple who truly believe that poeple "have the right do defend themselves" and in the other corner poeple who believe that things that are made to kill (even if it is to protect) should not be available to just anyone. and it hurts me to just give up, but I dont think i will ever be able to convince any of the poeple that belong to the first of these groups that carrying a gun does not make the world a safer place...not for them or anyone else. I'm going to stop participating in this discussion because i fail to see the use and leave ye all showing great disbelief in the fact that you feel safer walking around with something that propels object at high velocities. as a last statement I would like to say that saying that you can have these guns to protect urself from armed robbers and such is like saying the cold war is a good thing...if we all carry guns armed robbers will show uyp with rocket launchers they bought to protect themselves...

we have "copkillers"-guns because there are cops with guns....more poeple w/ guns equals more counterforce just as more cops w/ kevlar and stuff equals more "copkillers"

and if anyone says that its a good thing that in the cold war america made all those weapons because we'd else be under russian rule now i will personally.......well call names inside my head (isnt that scary)

anywayz like i said no-one is gonna get it through their thick skull that in essence guns = killing poeple = baaaaaaaaaaad.
baaaaad as in something we should have as little of as possible.
and that may not be a very well-argumented political statement but then it isnt meant to be. It's just me getting to the very core of things... and now i bid ye farewell and see yáll on other topics

[Shilar]

Originally posted by Enforcer
*cries out loud*

ITS NOT FAIR!!!

in one corner we have poeple who truly believe that poeple "have the right do defend themselves" and in the other corner poeple who believe that things that are made to kill (even if it is to protect) should not be available to just anyone. and it hurts me to just give up, but I dont think i will ever be able to convince any of the poeple that belong to the first of these groups that carrying a gun does not make the world a safer place...not for them or anyone else. I'm going to stop participating in this discussion because i fail to see the use and leave ye all showing great disbelief in the fact that you feel safer walking around with something that propels object at high velocities. as a last statement I would like to say that saying that you can have these guns to protect urself from armed robbers and such is like saying the cold war is a good thing...if we all carry guns armed robbers will show uyp with rocket launchers they bought to protect themselves...

we have "copkillers"-guns because there are cops with guns....more poeple w/ guns equals more counterforce just as more cops w/ kevlar and stuff equals more "copkillers"

and if anyone says that its a good thing that in the cold war america made all those weapons because we'd else be under russian rule now i will personally.......well call names inside my head (isnt that scary)

anywayz like i said no-one is gonna get it through their thick skull that in essence guns = killing poeple = baaaaaaaaaaad.
baaaaad as in something we should have as little of as possible.
and that may not be a very well-argumented political statement but then it isnt meant to be. It's just me getting to the very core of things... and now i bid ye farewell and see yáll on other topics

As right as it may sound, you cannot look at the world with rose-tinted glasses. There are people out there who would even make, yes *make* a gun just to kill. Giving me the speech about crooks would always try to one-up a normal citizen is also false: There are crooks who'd love to get their hands on an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade), but not because others have guns. They'd do this just to simply show they can get it. Think, if you had a handgun, a sub-machinegun, a Gatling gun (like in Predator, yes), or an RPG, which would you buy if you just want to kill?
I just believe it's natural to want to defend yourself, your family, and your property, and that the lawful people should be allowed the convenience of being able to do such. Spend the money on something more important, like getting more cops on the street, or educating kids so they don't become crooks, and stop wasting MY money trying to take one of the few things we have to defend ourselves against such miscreants. Thanks.

[sinecure]

Oh, and Enforcer. I reject one of your basic tenets expressed here--

There are occasions where killing people can be a very good thing to do.