DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 112, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/27/2004 03:48:09 PM · #1
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Glock: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals.

15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.!

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "...A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

------------------------------------------
Let the mud slinging commence :)

05/27/2004 04:07:27 PM · #2
2 books worth reading for those with an interest in defensive measures and firearms.....

Both by Massad Ayoob
In The Gravest Extreme ISBN 0-936279-00-1
The Truth About Self Protection ISBN 0-553-19519-0
05/27/2004 04:13:08 PM · #3
<censored>

Message edited by author 2004-10-20 02:05:17.
05/27/2004 04:20:20 PM · #4
Originally posted by Flash:

2 books worth reading for those with an interest in defensive measures and firearms.....

Both by Massad Ayoob
In The Gravest Extreme ISBN 0-936279-00-1
The Truth About Self Protection ISBN 0-553-19519-0


I've taken several classes from Massad Ayoob... He is very knowledgeable


Message edited by author 2004-05-27 16:35:49.
05/27/2004 04:42:25 PM · #5
I don't have an issue with gun control. I just use two hands:)
05/27/2004 04:47:14 PM · #6
Now ... I actually do like most of those :)

I am not against gun ownership, only irresponsibile gun ownership. I think the rest of the citizenry (through our representatives, the government), have a right to know who has what guns (just like registering our cars), for the dual purpose of ensuring that only a responsible person will have a gun in the first place, and so they (or their insurance company) can be held accountable should the gun end up being used irresponsibly.

I also think their is some limit as to what kind os "arms" the individual citizen should possess -- I think nuclear and chemical weapons are pretty hard to make a case for -- but where that line should be drawn is going to end up somewhere in a pretty broad range.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
That's why it's generally illegal to sell matches or lighters to persons under the age of majority, when they can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Again, it's not a question of prohibition to me, rather one of responsible regulation -- and I'm not saying that's what we have now ... I think what passes for gun control these days is largely an ineffective mess, inconveniencing the responsible owners and overlooking much if not most of the illegal diversions.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," -- unless you consider the NRA to be a militia. By starting the Second Amendment with these oft-elided phrases, I think that it's clear that the Framers meant for those armed citizens to be members of or subject to participation in "well-regulated" militias. Even if you leave out the militia part, it certainly seems to confer the right of the government to "regulate" arms, if not prohibit their posession. Basically, it was a cost-saving measure, so that the government could raise an army without having to buy guns for them.

Message edited by author 2004-05-27 16:47:57.
05/27/2004 04:51:45 PM · #7
Somthing amusing: In terms of raw firepower, the best armed group of people is the U.S. Military. In second, is U.S. civilians
05/27/2004 04:53:59 PM · #8
I would actually consider my self to be extremely well read on all things concerning the 2nd amendment, and as to the point about the well regulated militia: Well the founding fathers would not have considered a government run military as a militia...

My main problem with gun control laws today are not that they limit gun ownership, but that they lack intelligence or common sense and are instead fueled by emotion. Most guns laws do nothing but clamp down on law abiding citizens, who the 2nd amendment is suppose to protect...

Also: Driving a car is not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE, there is a difference...

edit: This is a timeless argument, but in short, I don't think I would ever give up my guns if the government told me to.

Message edited by author 2004-05-27 16:55:35.
05/27/2004 05:08:37 PM · #9
Originally posted by Russell2566:



Also: Driving a car is not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE, there is a difference...


Actually there isn't really, other than semantics. You might think there is, but it isn't true. These 'rights' you have to bear arms don't apply to everyone either. For example, I'm not allowed to own a gun. However, eventually, I can earn that right, if I happened to want it.

Message edited by author 2004-05-27 17:09:08.
05/27/2004 05:23:12 PM · #10
Originally posted by Russell2566:


19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.


Yes, gun control laws only hurt the law-abiding citizen. How many criminals buy guns from a retailer? The real solution is strict penalties for illegal gun possession.
05/27/2004 05:30:37 PM · #11
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Russell2566:



Also: Driving a car is not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE, there is a difference...


Actually there isn't really, other than semantics. You might think there is, but it isn't true. These 'rights' you have to bear arms don't apply to everyone either. For example, I'm not allowed to own a gun. However, eventually, I can earn that right, if I happened to want it.


I have no problem with my second amendment right to keep arms. It's the bearing part that seems to get infringed. I can't walk down the street with my SIG in a holster. Wait, technically it wouldn't be concealed...
05/27/2004 05:42:18 PM · #12
<censored>

Message edited by author 2004-10-20 02:05:54.
05/27/2004 05:43:01 PM · #13
Originally posted by thelsel:



I have no problem with my second amendment right to keep arms. It's the bearing part that seems to get infringed. I can't walk down the street with my SIG in a holster. Wait, technically it wouldn't be concealed...


and which milita would you be part of at that point in time ?
05/27/2004 05:46:38 PM · #14
Originally posted by micknewton:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Actually there isn't really, other than semantics. You might think there is, but it isn't true.

Sorry, but there is a big difference between a right and a privilege. You may not think so, but that doesn't change the facts.

Originally posted by Gordon:

These 'rights' you have to bear arms don't apply to everyone either. For example, I'm not allowed to own a gun. However, eventually, I can earn that right, if I happened to want it.

Are you an American citizen without a felony record? If you are not, then the right doesn't apply to you. Just living in America does not make you an American citizen.


Your reply to the second half contradicts your statement in the first half. If the first is true, and that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights' then they shouldn't be something you earn over time (which you can do) or something that can be taken away (which they can be)

As a result, the rights you refer to are actually a privilege, of either birth or later legal process and are dependant on your continued good behaviour, and can be granted and removed, just like any other privilege. You may not think so, but those are the facts.

Message edited by author 2004-05-27 17:49:21.
05/27/2004 05:48:20 PM · #15
Last month 10 % of high-schoolers responding to a survey put out by ABC news said that they had carried a gun during the previous month. Ought all high-schoolers be made to carry so that there will be less danger of anthing getting out of hand?

I know that untill a few years ago the people most likely to be killed by a handgun were the family of the purchaser. Is that still a valid statistic? I for one think Darwin's theorems have so little room to move in our well regulated society that we are no longer improving ourselves.

And always remember that guns don't kill people, it is the bullets that leave those ragged holes in people.

05/27/2004 06:00:42 PM · #16
Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by Russell2566:


19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.


Yes, gun control laws only hurt the law-abiding citizen. How many criminals buy guns from a retailer?

So, they must either be buying them or stealing them from gun owners.

If I'm killed with your gun, are you not responsible?
05/27/2004 06:03:38 PM · #17
Originally posted by GeneralE:


If I'm killed with your gun, are you not responsible?


If someone steals your car, and kills me with it, are you responsible?
05/27/2004 06:10:06 PM · #18
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


If I'm killed with your gun, are you not responsible?


If someone steals your car, and kills me with it, are you responsible?

In some circumstances and in some jurisdictions, possibly yes. Probably not for murder, but maybe for manslaughter or some other form of negligent homocide.
05/27/2004 06:34:40 PM · #19
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


If I'm killed with your gun, are you not responsible?


If someone steals your car, and kills me with it, are you responsible?

In some circumstances and in some jurisdictions, possibly yes. Probably not for murder, but maybe for manslaughter or some other form of negligent homocide.


If you let them borrow your car, maybe. If someone were to steal your car, I can't see any jurisdiction holding you responsible.
05/27/2004 06:49:09 PM · #20
Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


If I'm killed with your gun, are you not responsible?


If someone steals your car, and kills me with it, are you responsible?

In some circumstances and in some jurisdictions, possibly yes. Probably not for murder, but maybe for manslaughter or some other form of negligent homocide.


If you let them borrow your car, maybe. If someone were to steal your car, I can't see any jurisdiction holding you responsible.


Actually, you CAN be found liable if someone steals your car. If you do something stupid like leaving it running unattended, leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition, etc.
05/27/2004 07:48:56 PM · #21
Originally posted by GeneralE:



I also think their is some limit as to what kind os "arms" the individual citizen should possess -- I think nuclear and chemical weapons are pretty hard to make a case for -- but where that line should be drawn is going to end up somewhere in a pretty broad range.


What are you, some kind of liberal? The Constitution doesn't say anything about what kind of arms. There is no line. I want my nukes! It is my constitutional right to defend and protect myself with nuclear weapons. I don't need the big ones, just some small tactical missles or something in case my neighbor decides to invade my property... again, or I need to lead a revolt against an oppressive regime. If I had just been allowed to have my missles with me when I was carjacked, or when I was mugged at gun point as so often happens to me. I would sleep with it under my pillow. If somebody tries to break into my house at night while my family is sleeping I could just blow the *&$# out of the garage and take out the burglar. I just hope he doesn't fire off his first before I wake up and hear him. Remember, nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.
05/27/2004 09:05:33 PM · #22
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


If I'm killed with your gun, are you not responsible?


If someone steals your car, and kills me with it, are you responsible?

In some circumstances and in some jurisdictions, possibly yes. Probably not for murder, but maybe for manslaughter or some other form of negligent homocide.


If you let them borrow your car, maybe. If someone were to steal your car, I can't see any jurisdiction holding you responsible.


Actually, you CAN be found liable if someone steals your car. If you do something stupid like leaving it running unattended, leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition, etc.

Yeah, I was thinking of jumping out of the car "just for a second" to go to the ATM or mailbox or something, and someone (like a kid or teenager or criminal) jumping in and taking off with it. Leaving an unlocked gun in your car while in the mall or at the movies MIGHT be seen as negligent in some places, not in others (aren't states'/local rights delightful :) ?), leaving an unlocked and loaded firearm in your house with children present is considered negligent in a few more ....
05/27/2004 09:12:00 PM · #23
Originally posted by sailracer_98:

What are you, some kind of liberal? The Constitution doesn't say anything about what kind of arms.
Remember, nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.

I can't imagine how I manage to keep forgetting that crucial fact! :)

Actually, my 25+ years in graphic arts has taught me that, no matter how eloquent the composition or careful the transcription, there's ALWYAS a typo, and the Second Amendment is no exception. It is an explicit recognition of the tyranny of fashion, and maintains that there shall be no infringement of your right to BARE ARMS.
05/27/2004 10:10:57 PM · #24
<censored>

Message edited by author 2004-10-20 02:06:36.
05/27/2004 10:34:27 PM · #25
I wonder what Jesus Christ would say about the use of guns.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 01:29:40 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 01:29:40 PM EDT.