| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2007 06:47:12 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Times change. How many of us honestly need a rifle to live and prosper? Do you hunt for food? Does your family depend on your marksmanship to eat?
Owning a rifle in order to feed your family is a very different issue than owning a handgun to kill another human. |
I'd guess the same number of people who honestly need freedom of expression (given that the majority has nothing to say), freedom of religion (given that the majority practices accepted religions in no danger of state persecution), etc.
Please don't get my hopes up that laws are going to start being written that only legitimate the rights of the majority at the expense of the minority. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 07:36:50 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Nazi Germany's crime and murder rates were fairly low, especially compared to beforehand. However, the result was 11 million indefensible people systematically eradicated and many more dead in the war that followed by the tyrannical regime. |
You brought this up a couple of times - I thought that it might be worth reminding you that the Nazi power were elected to power. I know that it is inconvenient for your argument (and your desire to quote Germanic history as the ultimate evil/justification for whatever point you are making), but the Nazi party coming to power was (at least initially) a popular act and WWII was started by military aggression against other countries. It has nothing to do with the banning of civilian weapons. In fact, Europe was awash with weapons from a large war just 20 years earlier.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 09:07:56 PM · #78 |
| there's this technique on trouble-solving where if you always tackle the most severe problems, eventually problems will go away. So now guns are the most "severe" weapon public could keep. What's next, kitchen knives? Then our forks and steak knifes? finally they will take away our toothpicks, LMAO! |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 09:19:20 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
You interpret a law by reading it, not by reading exterior facts into it. |
And how do you deal with a law that different people are reading differently? Especially, when those reading it differently only substantially have done so since the 1900's?
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
Times change. |
THAN CHANGE THE LAW THROUGH LEGISLATION AS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE as opposed to the judicial re-interpretation & revision.
If the time has changed that much then get a Constitutional Ammendment passed.
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
How many of us honestly need a rifle to live and prosper? Do you hunt for food? Does your family depend on your marksmanship to eat? |
Do I need a rifle as sustenance provided tool these days. No I do not. However, with regards to it's need to live and prosper. I believe that the answer is a potential "yes".
I do believe it necessary to keep my family safe.
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
Owning a rifle in order to feed your family is a very different issue than owning a handgun to kill another human. |
That is true. And if you feel that is the way it should be than change the law according to our Constitution's means to do so. Not through mere re-interpretation to something that pleases you while providing the argument it's more current for the times.
Legislation is supposed to be passed through certain channels in order to ensure it's proper implementation. Every time the courts "legislate" we lose more rights than the Patriot Act will ever cost us.
The Judicial Branch is the only branch of the U.S. government in which the officials are not elected.
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
Regardless, they did little if anything to address the rights of slaves. They left that for a later generation. There was this nasty little conflict called the Civil War (or The War of Northern Aggression if you live south of the Mason-Dixon Line) that was, at least in part, about freeing the slaves. It could be argued that the founding fathers simply ignored the issue and went on their way, setting in place the mechanism to touch off one of the bloodiest wars in American history. Thanks guys! |
I absolutely agree with you. They were already tackling a momentous amount of change. I believe America paid a steep price of blood for that mistake. During the battle of Antietam blood flowed in rivers over a foot deep.
Originally posted by "matthew":
You brought this up a couple of times - I thought that it might be worth reminding you that the Nazi power were elected to power. |
I am quite aware of that. In fact, most democracies that turn into dictatorships are done so through elections. And I am also aware of the fact that one day Americans will lose their right to bear arms. They will do so by electing said enactors to power. Within a couple of decades Americans will also lose their right to vote and many their right to live.
Originally posted by "matthew":
I know that it is inconvenient for your argument (and your desire to quote Germanic history as the ultimate evil/justification for whatever point you are making), but the Nazi party coming to power was (at least initially) a popular act and WWII was started by military aggression against other countries. |
Actually, it's not inconvenient to me in the least. Although Nazi Germany always seems to be rather troubling and inconvenient for liberals as the time period eradicates the slippery slope argument for many liberal causes showing that the inclination is more real than fictional. Most of the time liberals deride or dismiss reference to Nazi Germany in order to avoid the real occurrence of these issues.
As for Nazi power as a popular act. I've never stated otherwise. In fact, in most such cases it is the popular support to the demise of opposition. (ie: those that opposed the popular are all dead).
As for WWII being started by military aggression. That much is obvious. But many of the internal barriers toward that aggression had been removed. Those who objected politically, even passively, no longer had the means to defend themselves. They either remained silent or became dead.
Some people try to make the Bush administration out to be some sort of Nazi like entity. I think such is way over-blown. But if it indeed were, then the rest of the world better hope America still has it's right to bear arms and that enough people have kept arms. Otherwise....it's the 4th Reich. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 09:19:40 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by crayon:
there's this technique on trouble-solving where if you always tackle the most severe problems, eventually problems will go away. So now guns are the most "severe" weapon public could keep. What's next, kitchen knives? Then our forks and steak knifes? finally they will take away our toothpicks, LMAO! |
At which point we will be left with only crayons. ;) |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 09:58:40 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by crayon:
there's this technique on trouble-solving where if you always tackle the most severe problems, eventually problems will go away. So now guns are the most "severe" weapon public could keep. What's next, kitchen knives? Then our forks and steak knifes? finally they will take away our toothpicks, LMAO! |
At which point we will be left with only crayons. ;) |
yes because a sharpened coloured-pencil would be too dangerous a weapon for the public to yield! :P |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:13:03 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
You interpret a law by reading it, not by reading exterior facts into it. |
And how do you deal with a law that different people are reading differently? Especially, when those reading it differently only substantially have done so since the 1900's?
|
You certainly don't add facts from other documents. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:17:04 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
How many of us honestly need a rifle to live and prosper? Do you hunt for food? Does your family depend on your marksmanship to eat? |
Do I need a rifle as sustenance provided tool these days. No I do not. However, with regards to it's need to live and prosper. I believe that the answer is a potential "yes".
I do believe it necessary to keep my family safe.
|
Many disagree.
You seem to want to disregard historical context or hold it up as an pillar of law, depending on how it fits your opinion. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:44:47 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
You interpret a law by reading it, not by reading exterior facts into it. |
And how do you deal with a law that different people are reading differently? Especially, when those reading it differently only substantially have done so since the 1900's?
|
You certainly don't add facts from other documents. |
If what you say is true, then how would you explain the Supreme Court's opinion in the Everson v. Board of Education (330 U.S. 1 (1947 ), 15-16) decision in which Justice Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"?
The Jefferson quotation appears nowhere in the Constitution. Rather, it was quoted from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists - what you would call an "other document". |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:39:32 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
if something does happen and our government goes completely wacko or collapses altogether, I for one do not want to be left defenseless. |
they'd still own our asses with their superior gears like tanks, rockets and bazookas, but a good point to ponder nonetheless, Ken. |
Ever seen Red Dawn? Possible? Probably not, but probable.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2007 01:44:39 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
if something does happen and our government goes completely wacko or collapses altogether, I for one do not want to be left defenseless. |
they'd still own our asses with their superior gears like tanks, rockets and bazookas, but a good point to ponder nonetheless, Ken. |
Ever seen Red Dawn? Possible? Probably not, but probable. |
Damn straight, crazy rn! Probably not possible, but possibly probable! And if it possibly happens, the probability is that I will possibly be armed. ...most likely. |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 01:50:14 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
I suggest that those who really think they have a right to guns unconditionally should have them. As the statistics show, they (and unfortunately some innocents) will, over time, be flushed from the gene pool. |
This makes as much sense as abortion and Liberals? But abortion kills more humans than guns. Kind of a pointless argument to me. |
Interesting point. Some people who consider unborn fetus human life would say millions are killed yearly. Doctors who consider them just any ol' tissue indicate no "person" is killed. In any event, subtracting suicides only about 15 to 20 thousand are killed by firearms a year in the USA. Automobiles kill upwards of 50 thousand. As many as half those deaths are because of drunk driving. I see no right to own cars in the constitiution.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2007 01:57:15 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
if something does happen and our government goes completely wacko or collapses altogether, I for one do not want to be left defenseless. |
they'd still own our asses with their superior gears like tanks, rockets and bazookas, but a good point to ponder nonetheless, Ken. |
Ever seen Red Dawn? Possible? Probably not, but probable. |
Damn straight, crazy rn! Probably not possible, but possibly probable! And if it possibly happens, the probability is that I will possibly be armed. ...most likely. |
What would be probably not possible about it? Guerrilla/terrorist tactics aren't unknown here and the people have easy access to all they need to fashion effective weapons. |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 02:04:41 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
if something does happen and our government goes completely wacko or collapses altogether, I for one do not want to be left defenseless. |
they'd still own our asses with their superior gears like tanks, rockets and bazookas, but a good point to ponder nonetheless, Ken. |
Ever seen Red Dawn? Possible? Probably not, but probable. |
Damn straight, crazy rn! Probably not possible, but possibly probable! And if it possibly happens, the probability is that I will possibly be armed. ...most likely. |
What would be probably not possible about it? Guerrilla/terrorist tactics aren't unknown here and the people have easy access to all they need to fashion effective weapons. |
I would respond to that, but I am not sure of what my post that you replied to actually meant, and since it sounds like you are disagreeing with it, I may agree with you, but possibly not.
*off to fashion some more effective weapons* |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 02:06:30 AM · #90 |
crayon is now browsing ebay for used tanks or fighter jets - just in case
Message edited by author 2007-03-14 02:06:43. |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 02:07:28 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by crayon:
crayon is now browsing ebay for used tanks or fighter jets - just in case |
If you were half the man McGuyver is, you would turn that Barbie Cam into a WMD. |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 02:08:47 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
It is up to Americans to decide whether they want to face the threat of gun violence, and be armed to oppose it, or to figure out some way so that the threat does not arise. |
I seem to notice there are many special squads of heavily armed police in the UK. A country that has banned most firearms unless you're the very rich or very royal, or very connected. A country that bans "saturday night special" Samauri swords, and even has problems with knives much more pointed than butter knives.
I'll stick with the threat of gun violence I'm presented with in my life. I've lived 51 years without ever seeing a weapon fired in anger. I've only seen one police officer draw her weapon during that period, and she didn't point it at anyone. The person who knocked on my door at 11:30pm one dark night was worried about gun violence. He claimed to need a ride, as his car was broken down. When I answered the door his first words were: "don't shoot me." I was showing no weapon. I gave him a ride. He got to see the inside of my home unfortunately. Seeing that I lived alone he came back the next day and surveiled my home and once I left on an errand he broke in and stole my Minolta 900 film camera, several lenses, and my coin collection. He had to be absolutely sure I was not there and no one else would be there armed, or he'd not break in.
I'm sure if the general populace was disarmed the criminal element would be somewhat more bold. Especially since they would still be armed. Gun control laws don't apply to criminals. Only to honest citizens who are subject to their penalities.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2007 02:09:04 AM · #93 |
Geez...originally I was going to stay out of this...actually, no I still think I'm going to stay out of this...there's no point ... everyone has their own views and will continue to have their own views. Maybe some day a law-abiding citizen legally carrying a firearm will save someone's life who is opposed to gun ownership and they'll be singing a different song at that point.
I see so many comments about owning guns for this reason or that reason and why there is no point to still own a gun, or how there is a difference in owning a gun for hunting to provide for your family and owning a gun to kill another human being...
Let me just point out the fact that the above thoughts are completely wrong. I don't own handguns to kill another human being. I own a handgun to protect my life, my families lives, and the lives of friends I know as well as my family's lives, or to stop a madman from murdering a room full of other innocent people.
I don't agree with the fact that everyone should own a handgun. If you are comfortable with owning a handgun, if you are mentally stable enough to own a handgun responsibly, and if you have completed the proper training to own a handgun, then I think you should. There is a large amount of responsibility that comes with owning a handgun and probably a good percentage of people who do carry a handgun don't understand that.
Would you believe me if I said that 80% of police officers in the US look at their handgun as nothing more than a tool for the job? Their training is basically something that 90% of non-physically challenged ordinary citizens could pass after one day of practice. About 15% of police are into handguns and know how to use one very effectively. Another 5% are experts and live, breathe, and love them.
Most police officers honestly couldn't shoot a stop sign at 50 yards 50% of the time...those are not the type of odds I'd want to put my life into the hands of.
That is all not to mention the fact that owning a handgun is not only for defensive purposes, but is also a sport to many people. Since purchasing my first handgun, I have completed so many classes that it's not funny. I compete weekly in a defensive pistol league and get a lot of enjoyment out of it.
--
Anyway, back to the main point here...I'm staying out of this conversation...back to your regularly scheduled program.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2007 04:39:52 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Would you believe me if I said that 80% of police officers in the US look at their handgun as nothing more than a tool for the job? Their training is basically something that 90% of non-physically challenged ordinary citizens could pass after one day of practice. About 15% of police are into handguns and know how to use one very effectively. Another 5% are experts and live, breathe, and love them.
Most police officers honestly couldn't shoot a stop sign at 50 yards 50% of the time...those are not the type of odds I'd want to put my life into the hands of.
|
This comes off as primarily being from the "75% of statistics are made up on the spot" style of statistic, as I've known many officers and am (somewhat) familiar with their training and proficiency requirements. |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 04:42:33 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by crayon:
crayon is now browsing ebay for used tanks or fighter jets - just in case |
If you were half the man McGuyver is, you would turn that Barbie Cam into a WMD. |
i have modified it to squirt water instead.
say Ken, wanna make a pose for me? :p |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 05:00:48 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Sir Roflmao:
turn that Barbie Cam into a WMD. |
CORRECTION: "i have modified it to squirt water hydrochloric acid instead."
Geez crayon, I'm not always gonna be around to help you out. |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 07:28:45 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Matthew:
It is up to Americans to decide whether they want to face the threat of gun violence, and be armed to oppose it, or to figure out some way so that the threat does not arise. |
I seem to notice there are many special squads of heavily armed police in the UK. A country that has banned most firearms unless you're the very rich or very royal, or very connected. A country that bans "saturday night special" Samauri swords, and even has problems with knives much more pointed than butter knives. |
I'm not sure to where in the UK you refer. I very rarely see guns. The only places I see them on public are in airports, around the palace of Westminster, and sometimes outside the country's main criminal court near my office when they have a high risk prisoner. However, it is possible to own guns (other than handguns) if you are licensed to do so.
There are armed response units, and there are armed diplomatic core (my uncle belonged to that). However, most of the police most of the time are unarmed. Most of the criminals are unarmed. Gun murders tend to make the newspapers because of their rarity. I doubt that the same could be said of the USA.
My point was that if you have a gun culture, then you must expect your criminals to feel the need to be armed and citizens might feel the need to arm themselves. Without the gun culture, the same is not true.
I don't pretend to know the answer, but the consistent answer (from even the pro-gun lobby here) appears to be the importance of education and respect for guns - that would seem to indicate the importance of some kind of universal, strict gun licensing requirement based upon that training being taken and a review for suitability being conducted.
Personally, I enjoy sports shooting. But I am glad that I live in a place where there is absolutely no need for a gun for self protection.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2007 07:34:24 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
You brought this up a couple of times - I thought that it might be worth reminding you that the Nazi power were elected to power. |
I am quite aware of that. In fact, most democracies that turn into dictatorships are done so through elections. And I am also aware of the fact that one day Americans will lose their right to bear arms. They will do so by electing said enactors to power. Within a couple of decades Americans will also lose their right to vote and many their right to live. |
Then why did you say that it was a result of the absence of guns? Individuals with handguns would not prevent a popular movement, would they?
Americans are losing rights all of the time - often at the moment to defend against the terrorist threat. But no-one is using their handguns to defend their rights against the state. The militia argument is absurd: such a collapse of the integrity of a governmental power is a gradual and barely perceptible thing - not somthing that an armed militia can do much about.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2007 09:19:10 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
You interpret a law by reading it, not by reading exterior facts into it. |
And how do you deal with a law that different people are reading differently? Especially, when those reading it differently only substantially have done so since the 1900's?
|
You certainly don't add facts from other documents. |
If what you say is true, then how would you explain the Supreme Court's opinion in the Everson v. Board of Education (330 U.S. 1 (1947 ), 15-16) decision in which Justice Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"?
The Jefferson quotation appears nowhere in the Constitution. Rather, it was quoted from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists - what you would call an "other document". |
There's a difference between what the Supreme and Appellate Courts do and what Law Enforcement and the Criminal Courts do. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of what a law actually means, they can do whatever they feel necessary to divine the intent of a law. If they choose to cite the Oracle at Delphi or consult with Hitler's pet monkey; they can.
You would be treading on dangerous ground to base your personal behavior on your own interpretation, based on external documents, of a law. It could be a very, very long wait in prison while your case winds its way through the appeals process to the Supreme Court. You could waste a significant portion of your life as your cell mate's bitch only to be denied. |
|
|
|
03/14/2007 10:40:52 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
You certainly don't add facts from other documents. |
Actually, that's one of the main ways of evaluating something from the past.
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
Many disagree. |
That's fine, you have the right to disagree. And even to seek the changes of our laws.
Originally posted by "fir3bird":
I seem to notice there are many special squads of heavily armed police in the UK. A country that has banned most firearms unless you're the very rich or very royal, or very connected. A country that bans "saturday night special" Samauri swords, and even has problems with knives much more pointed than butter knives. |
I always find it amazing that in countries where firearms are banned the rich & powerful seem to be excluded. Isn't that always the case?
Originally posted by "Matthew":
My point was that if you have a gun culture, then you must expect your criminals to feel the need to be armed and citizens might feel the need to arm themselves. Without the gun culture, the same is not true. |
So, citizens get to believe they're safe and their only safety reliance are unarmed police officers. This works "great" in times of stability. But were that to wax and wane (and it does) the result would be an unarmed populace with an unarmed police force to defend it.
God help those poor souls when that day comes.
Originally posted by "Matthew":
I don't pretend to know the answer, but the consistent answer (from even the pro-gun lobby here) appears to be the importance of education and respect for guns - that would seem to indicate the importance of some kind of universal, strict gun licensing requirement based upon that training being taken and a review for suitability being conducted. |
We do in fact have hand gun licensing, waiting periods, etc. It didn't make much difference because most guns used in crimes were illegally owned and acquired.
Originally posted by "Matthew":
Then why did you say that it was a result of the absence of guns? Individuals with handguns would not prevent a popular movement, would they? |
Actually, yes, they can prevent a populist movement from going to far. You can have a mob and one person can pull out a gun and fire into the sky. And the mob will often flee in terror. Popularist mobs usually don't do well when facing armed opposition.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Americans are losing rights all of the time - often at the moment to defend against the terrorist threat. But no-one is using their handguns to defend their rights against the state. |
Most of the rights Americans have lost have been through taxes. Albeit, photographing historic landmarks and structures has become a bit more complicated often resulting in explanations to police officers. But in reality, the wire tapping, etc affects few Americans so it hasn't caused as much of a stir in people's personal lives.
Americans are not going to rise up bearing arms until there is profound impact on their personal lives.
Originally posted by "matthew":
he militia argument is absurd: such a collapse of the integrity of a governmental power is a gradual and barely perceptible thing - not somthing that an armed militia can do much about. |
I have the American Revolution to prove otherwise, thank you very much!
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
You would be treading on dangerous ground to base your personal behavior on your own interpretation, based on external documents, of a law. It could be a very, very long wait in prison while your case winds its way through the appeals process to the Supreme Court. You could waste a significant portion of your life as your cell mate's bitch only to be denied. |
If it reaches that point, it would not be a long time in prison. It'd be either a long time on the run fighting a guerilla war with tens of thousands of others. Or, it'd be death.
Secondly, as an American I believe such basing of personal behavior is not only within my right but is my demanded of duty. It is only because of those who acted on such personal behavior that the American Revolution occurred. It is only because of those who acting out in personal behavior that the civil rights movement was created and succeeded.
And I'd rather die bearing my rights....then die in a concentration camp. |
|
