The Republican Party

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
raider... First of all... you started out giving a defenition of the second amendment that was wrong... we here corrected you but then you would pick another part of it to prove your point and be wrong about that too... now you appear to have recanted all your previous defenitions but have changed your tactic to... "well... the constitution is outdated" line of reasoning.   I do not believe that it is "outdated" and do not belive that governments or people in general have changed much.  
Otherwise... why have any amendments?   why the need to guarentee free speech for innstance?

You then claim that those who are armed are the frieghtened ones and those making bans of firearms are the brave civic minded ones.   this puzzles me.  I know that you are probly a big bad bellybutton guy but... if there is a violent person commiting a crime... Iwant one of the citizens there to be armed ... I don't hold out much faith that you will be any use to the rest of us in your unarmed state.  To me... it is the armed person who is the civic minded one... we are armed because you are not skilled or smart or brave enough to be.

as for gangs....If you are so frieghtened of gangs (like you are of your neighbors
and them being armed)... bad news... they allready are and.. they are breaking laws to do it... disarming your neighbors isn't gonna help you in the least....

 if you are so scared of gangs then the real solution would be to allow any citizen to be armed....just like the constitution  demands... and then any non citizen or criminal that is in possesion of a gun... the law could read... "any armed person not a citizen of the country would face an automatic death penalty or life in prison"...  

If gangs are such a big problem then lets deal with it instead of using em as a boogey man to restrict citizens rights..

My reference to the military was that they are ordinary citizens drawn from the population and carrying full auto weapons of the latest design and under their sole control... it appears that they are not butchering each other over the arguements and such that crop up... it does not appear that allowing them all to carry firearms in an allmost urestericted manner is causeing them to turn into a pack of bloodthirsty maniacs.

perhaps you feel that gang members are not really humans tho?

to recap.. you have changed your mind at least twice as to what the 2nd says..  now you seem to think that the second condones restrictions other than being old enough to be in a militia...  Where does the second condone restrictions?  We are not talking about what you would like or accept  here... we are talking about what the document says.

lazs

I'm sorry but I don't tend to read anything an Anarchist says about the government/constitution/amendments/history with anything other than humor. To hear you complain about "Your Rights" out of one side of your mouth, and then espouse "I am an anarchist" out of the other lends No credibility to your view or point.

Since when did anarchists use the Constitution as a shield?

Let me recap for you... I am against citizens owning Fully automatic weapons. With proper licensing and testing maybe but not joe average going into wal-mart.

Let me ask you a question, If and its a huge if, The constitution was legally changed, through Repeal, and the 2nd was gone, would you still carry or would you turn in your guns?

Save your rhetoric. I intervened in a kidnapping without being armed. I have stopped a woman getting beaten and stopped a man from being stabbed to death just by going toward the two guys who were stabbing him. I have also stopped a burglar in my house cold in his tracks and made him wait on the floor to the cops came. All without the benefit of a fire-arm. Not that it matters to you but I am well instructed in firearms. Former Rifle Team member here, so give it a rest. Maybe I will get in over my head one day but if that happens there is no saying a gun wouldnt have got me killed instead of preventing a death.

Again I ask you point out where I say ban guns. I do not. I think there is a line and I draw it at Automatic Weapons. I said I could see why they drew the line at Assault weapons, not that I agreed with it.

I do however agree with your "life in prison/death penalty" law. Just don't think we could build enough jails so we would have to be using the hell out of that death penalty.

Gangmembers' mentality and the mentality of the troops in Iraq was what you compared and you should know better.

Gangmember humanity is not at question. They have already proven they don't care about stray bullets, drive bys, and the like. That means innocent people getting caught in the line of fire and the faster that rate of fire the more bullets flying around. Its pretty simple IMO.

See Lasz, rational people, when confronted with evidence that shows their argument to be invalid, "CHANGE THEIR MIND". It's called realizing you were wrong. Sorry I didnt stick to an invalid argument but I am smart enough to know when I am not right. If you took half as much energy as you waste downing everyone who disagrees with you and actually showed some evidence (links, documents, etc) why you are correct, you might change someone's opinion. But as it is, they way you go about your argument, will just make someone stick to their guns longer. Pun intended. lol

As for restrictions on the 2nd... surely you are aware that every "Amendment" contains restrictions.

Freedom of speech - no vulgarity in public places, or fire in a crowded place.

Freedom of Religion - cant sacrifice animals if you want

Voting-- Cant vote if your a felon

Guns--- Cant own a fire-arm if your a felon, Cant take one on into a school

So as you can see there is plenty of precedence for restriction on our amendments.

[lazs2]

raider... I am saying that it doesn't matter if you think the second is in need of restrictions or not... I am saying the the second does not put any restrictions on firearms.   It no where says that felons can't have guns.

I am against laws that do not allow people who have served their time to then have a firearm.... if you don't trust em to have a firearm then why did you let em out in the first place?  when the guy gets out he ought to get his gun back and his right to vote and.... well.... golly gee.... how bout just making him a citizen again until he does something wrong.

assault weapons not your cup of tea?  too bad... don't buy one.   Machine guns scare you?  too bad.   help get stronger sentancing laws for those who abuse their right to own one.

not enough prisons or places of executions?  nope... again... you make assumptions based on myth... it is proven that stronger penalties modify criminal behavior.

gang members are only bold because they feel that they will pretty much get away with it.  they are no different than you or I so far as humanity goes.   They can be frieghtened.

I am glad that you are so civic minded that you would take on armed rapists and thugs  (they did have a firearm right?)   Did you just charge right in and take the gun away or did you just ignore the bullets striking your body?  I mean.... I consider myself in pretty good shape but them bullet really hurt... been shot once and seen more than a few...  those guys and me just don't have the toughness of you I guess.... even so.... I am not counting on someone like yourself with superhuman strength... If you don't mind tho... I would still rather someone in the crowd be a responsible gun owner.

as for... if the second were repealed would I still have guns or turn em in?... very weird question...  I would do everything that I could to convince the feds that I did not have a gun... that is the best answer I can give..

As to the whole anarchist thing..  Ok... you got me I misspoke or was unclear or was just flat out wrong... take your pick... see... I can admit I am wrong to...

I have anarchist leanings...  I want as little government as I can get... I believe the constitution was a document made to limit the powers of government...  people like yourself have been trying ever since tho to get around it and give government more and more power.  I want less government... I have libertarian and republican leanings..... I have no democrat leanings I am aware
of.

as for you banning guns... you claim felons can't have em... you feel it is ok for poor people to not own firearms.... you support laws that ban specific weapons you arbitrarily choose and seem to know nothing about (rifle team or not)... you favor restrictions that effectively ban guns for segments of the population and my guess is that you would support even more if they were mentioned... magazine ban?   semi auto pistol ban?  .50 caliber ban?  wher would you draw the line?  

Yeah.... I would say you are a gun banner.... you just don't have the guts to admit it.

[lazs2]

and... if you want me to point you in the right direction (pun intended)... then read the clinton ordered DOJ report on the second for a modern interpretation.... Read the federalist papers for what the founders thought and why....  read the individual states suggestions for the second while the constitution was being drafted.   You are the school boy.... get your nose out of that professors pony tail and do some research on your own....

or.... just regurgitate what a couple of professors spoon feed ya

as for restrictions on the other amendments... I believe most are wrong... if you yell fire and no one is hurt there should be no crime except intent to commit injury... the word is not a crime.

the amendments only say what the government can't do... they do nothing about local and state ordinances.   You can indeed sacrafice a goat if you want.

lazs

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
as for... if the second were repealed would I still have guns or turn em in?... very weird question...  I would do everything that I could to convince the feds that I did not have a gun... that is the best answer I can give..

As to the whole anarchist thing..  Ok... you got me I misspoke or was unclear or was just flat out wrong... take your pick... see... I can admit I am wrong to...


as for you banning guns... you claim felons can't have em... you feel it is ok for poor people to not own firearms.... you support laws that ban specific weapons you arbitrarily choose and seem to know nothing about (rifle team or not)... you favor restrictions that effectively ban guns for segments of the population and my guess is that you would support even more if they were mentioned... magazine ban?   semi auto pistol ban?  .50 caliber ban?  wher would you draw the line?  

Yeah.... I would say you are a gun banner.... you just don't have the guts to admit it.

1)It has to do with civic responsibility. You like to use the Constitution as your backing for why you have such broad rights regarding fire-arms. I was wondering if the Constitution were changed, whether you would still abide by the Constitution. Obviously not.

2)Takes big men like us to admit we are wrong lol

3)I dont "claim" anything. Felons may not posess fire-arms. They still can/will but its is illegal.

4)Its not arbitrary. It goes up the ladder of firepower. Pistol, Shotty/Rifle, Assault Rifle, Full-Autos. That is how I see guns. I only see Full-auto's as being illegal.

5)LoL see whatever you want to see. I can tell you do that instead of reading what is written most of the time anyway. I have no problem with your guns, Full-autos though go get your license from the ATF. Simple, not that complicated, but if you want to call me a gun banner for not wanting people to have easy access to fully automatic weapons, then go ahead.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
and... if you want me to point you in the right direction (pun intended)... then read the clinton ordered DOJ report on the second for a modern interpretation.... Read the federalist papers for what the founders thought and why....  read the individual states suggestions for the second while the constitution was being drafted.   You are the school boy.... get your nose out of that professors pony tail and do some research on your own....

or.... just regurgitate what a couple of professors spoon feed ya

as for restrictions on the other amendments... I believe most are wrong... if you yell fire and no one is hurt there should be no crime except intent to commit injury... the word is not a crime.

the amendments only say what the government can't do... they do nothing about local and state ordinances.   You can indeed sacrafice a goat if you want.

lazs

1)I will, I just don't have time right now. School just started back and I am in the  process of moving.

2)Couple of Professors spoon fed me the Declaration of Independence, does that mean they are wrong? pfft

3)In case you havent noticed, I always link to the material I dig up. If I quote it or use it as evidence, I link to it. I live in Georgia, maybe in Cali they have hippies for teachers but we dont here.

4)As for the amendments, What you believe doesnt matter. Does that sound familiar? There are restrictions on the amendments and you know it.

5)Ok you can sacrifice a goat in some places and you cant in other places. Kinda like being able to carry a gun in certain places and not in others lol I know that was a stretch and I am not being serious. Just wanted to end on a good note.

[Silat]

I just love these republicans. "religious faith needs to have a greater presence in public policy decisions."
As long as its my faith then that is ok with me. LOL

Congressman likens divorce, gay nuptials

Associated Press


EVANSVILLE – U.S. Rep. John Hostettler told a gathering of clergy that divorce is as dangerous to society as gay marriage and that churches are essential to strengthening families.

“The picture of marriage is the picture of Christian salvation,” Hostettler, R-Ind., said Tuesday. “Any diminishing of that notion – whether homosexual marriage or any other degradation of marriage – is something we must fight in public policy.”

Hostettler, who spoke to an Indiana Family Institute program at Crossroads Christian Church in Evansville, also said religious faith needs to have a greater presence in public policy decisions.

Hostettler, who is from Wadesville, has won a string of generally close elections in southwestern Indiana’s Eighth District since he first won his seat in 1994 with strong support from religious conservatives.

[lazs2]

raider... you still aren't making any sense... if your professors didn't tell you what the fedralist papers were and pretty much what the DOJ says about the 2nd then you were cheated in that class...

It is you who are not obeying the constitution... the constitutiion is a document limiting government powers.  You are trying to turn it into a document that limits the peoples powers.   You are the one reading restrictions into it for the people that do not exist.  

The heart of the constitution is to limit federal power.  If it were changed fundamentaly to give the governmment power to ban the right to own firearms then it would not longer be a document of freedom but of government repression... We would be like england with only the privliges that a government allowed us.

Why shoul a felon not have a gun?  What is the purpose of jail if not to keep him out of society until he has been deemed to have paid for his crime?   How is making him a second class citizen the rest of his life fair?  

Machine guns and concealled carry....no federal laws against them but... they are not cheap or easy to get in most cases.... machine guns are denied many people for arbitrary reasons or because they can afford or... can be given the gun but they can't afford the prohibitive restrictions and cost of "licencing"  this is a de facto ban...  It is the same as only allowing those who can afford a 300 dollar a year tax and a training class to be able to speak or write freely... after all... speech can cause injury and death as in your example of yelling fire or bomb or snake or whatever in a crowd...  

The democrats seek more and more firearms restrictions at both the state and federal and... the local level  unconstitutional restrictions...  they are defacto bans... even you would admit that if you are honest about it.... that is in fact, their sole purpose since no gun law restricting use has ever been proven to prevent crime or accident or death.... none... name one.   the fact is that they really are a cowardly incremental form of a ban... each new restriction affects the right of a portion of the citizens to own and bear arms...

In every case a law made to restrict firearms has had no effect or has increased crime.   Those places with more relaxed or no restrictions have allways had crime go down.  even if this were not true... the second would still say what it says and it says that the federal government has no right to stop "the people" from keeping and bearing arms.

lazs

[lazs2]

and... since you are a rifle team, bullet charging and soaking up hero type guy in the prime of life with an understanding of the constitution that only our unbiased school system and it's world wise professors can give a man...

I ask for clarification on what such a modern man... one who knows better than the founders... what would you allow me to have fireams wise?

You say no machine guns unless they give me a permit and I can afford to pay the taxes... Lets say I can't... you then think I should not have one?  

how bout .50 caliber bolt action rifles?   How bout 90 round drum mags?   silencers?   so called "assault weapons" (how did you feel about em pre/during/post ban?)   Is the value and the right to won a weapon predicated on the whim of the government?  is firearms rights something that should go back and forth as different political parties take power?

how bout short shotguns?  17.999 inch barrel?  should you be free to own an 18" barrel and be thrown in prison for 5 years for a 17.9999 inch one?

If you have weapons that you think should be banned then can you give me your reasons... I will accept that you "feel" that they are bad but still think you are a buffoon..

And... so far as winning you or anyone else over with the way I argue.... who cares?  I don't... do as you please.  If you are won over by someone who kisses your butt and seduces you into beliveing what is not logical or real.... don't read what I write... stay in school and lsten to those world wise scholars and independent thinkers.

lazs

[indy007]

It is interesting. There was a significant debate during the drafting of the Constitution on defense and militias (general vs. select [a NG structure] vs. standing army). Here is this general (of the people) militia argument:

Here's how I've heard the 2nd ammendment argued, and I agree very much with this interpretation... because it makes alot of sense.

"A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia,  being neccessary to the security of a free state,'

okay, it's understandable a state needs a standing force to hold off aggression.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There's a signifigant difference here between The Militia and The People. Why? Because when this was written, they had just fought a war for several years against a tyrannical state militia. A militia who's course of action was to march in and disarm the populace to lower the chances of conflict and armed rebellion. Note it does NOT say the right of the militia, it clearly says the right of the people. Knowing that the people may once again have to fight off a tyranical government, the people must be armed to defend their rights.

Seems pretty simple to me.



As for what basically amounts to technology restrictions... if somebody could march into my home with an M16A2 and tell me I no longer have the freedom of speech, I want, and would hope my neighbors also have, Steyr AUGs within easy reach so that person can not take my rights away with more firepower. Yes, I think people should even be able to own tanks if they can afford it.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
raider... you still aren't making any sense... if your professors didn't tell you what the fedralist papers were and pretty much what the DOJ says about the 2nd then you were cheated in that class...

It is you who are not obeying the constitution... the constitutiion is a document limiting government powers.  You are trying to turn it into a document that limits the peoples powers.   You are the one reading restrictions into it for the people that do not exist.  

The heart of the constitution is to limit federal power.  If it were changed fundamentaly to give the governmment power to ban the right to own firearms then it would not longer be a document of freedom but of government repression... We would be like england with only the privliges that a government allowed us.

Why shoul a felon not have a gun?  What is the purpose of jail if not to keep him out of society until he has been deemed to have paid for his crime?   How is making him a second class citizen the rest of his life fair?  

Machine guns and concealled carry....no federal laws against them but... they are not cheap or easy to get in most cases.... machine guns are denied many people for arbitrary reasons or because they can afford or... can be given the gun but they can't afford the prohibitive restrictions and cost of "licencing"  this is a de facto ban...  It is the same as only allowing those who can afford a 300 dollar a year tax and a training class to be able to speak or write freely... after all... speech can cause injury and death as in your example of yelling fire or bomb or snake or whatever in a crowd...  

The democrats seek more and more firearms restrictions at both the state and federal and... the local level  unconstitutional restrictions...  they are defacto bans... even you would admit that if you are honest about it.... that is in fact, their sole purpose since no gun law restricting use has ever been proven to prevent crime or accident or death.... none... name one.   the fact is that they really are a cowardly incremental form of a ban... each new restriction affects the right of a portion of the citizens to own and bear arms...

In every case a law made to restrict firearms has had no effect or has increased crime.   Those places with more relaxed or no restrictions have allways had crime go down.  even if this were not true... the second would still say what it says and it says that the federal government has no right to stop "the people" from keeping and bearing arms.

lazs

Lazs I didnt say I didnt know what they were, I said I havent read them.

I am not reading restrictions into it, those restrictions were put into place by OUR LAWS.

I know about the constitution so slow down, jeez. Quit trying to make arguments that I am not making. That is getting old very fast. You did it in the sniper thread and you are doing it again now.

A felon has already shown they have NO Respect and no will to follow our laws. There-fore they forfeit their rights to fire-arms and voting. Read Socrates/Aristotle on being a Citizen. He made himself a second class citizen by committing A FELONY. its not a misdemeanor.

As for cost being prohibitive, you could say the same about private pilot's license's. Get a new job if you can't afford a machine gun and take care of your family. Oh the poor people cant afford machine guns wahh the humanity.

Sigh right back to dems. It's always a circle with you. I do not deny what you say about them. I just don't think its a big deal. Oh cant carry pistols in San Fran, well  get started trying to help people overturn the laws you don't agree with, or move. Sounds like you live in the wrong state if YOUR duly ELECTED officials are making laws you don't agree with. I sincerely doubt though you have done anything to try to get those "laws" overturned. Venting on this BBS does nothing for your problem.

I said it before and I will say it again, Your best defense against infringement of your rights or an Uppity government is a lawyer, not a gun.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
and... since you are a rifle team, bullet charging and soaking up hero type guy in the prime of life with an understanding of the constitution that only our unbiased school system and it's world wise professors can give a man...

I ask for clarification on what such a modern man... one who knows better than the founders... what would you allow me to have fireams wise?

You say no machine guns unless they give me a permit and I can afford to pay the taxes... Lets say I can't... you then think I should not have one?  

how bout .50 caliber bolt action rifles?   How bout 90 round drum mags?   silencers?   so called "assault weapons" (how did you feel about em pre/during/post ban?)   Is the value and the right to won a weapon predicated on the whim of the government?  is firearms rights something that should go back and forth as different political parties take power?

how bout short shotguns?  17.999 inch barrel?  should you be free to own an 18" barrel and be thrown in prison for 5 years for a 17.9999 inch one?

If you have weapons that you think should be banned then can you give me your reasons... I will accept that you "feel" that they are bad but still think you are a buffoon..

And... so far as winning you or anyone else over with the way I argue.... who cares?  I don't... do as you please.  If you are won over by someone who kisses your butt and seduces you into beliveing what is not logical or real.... don't read what I write... stay in school and lsten to those world wise scholars and independent thinkers.

lazs

Lazs you are one of those people that feel education is evil, aren't you?

Just told you some background on myself, you make your own decision. I will say those were some of the prouder moments of my life.

I have already said the only thing I would ban are MG's. As far as guns.

If you can't afford to pay taxes then how can you afford a MG? Yes though, if you cant afford the taxes/licensing then you should not be able to buy it. It's a simple concept.

I could care less about sawed off shotty's.

I have already told you why MG's should be banned. Man you are slow. Maybe some education would be helpful.
Here I will summarize it for you.

Its because that way 1 or 2 people cant cause tremendous loss of life. Its because MG's bullets tend to travel farther, faster and more powerfully thus they penetrate houses, cars, etc farther and easier, killing innocent people. It's because I don't want terrorists to come here and go get MG's from our stores and use them against us. At least make it more difficult for them to be armed with huge firepower.


Considering how you feel about your "rights" being legislated away, I would think you would try to convince everyone of how unjust that "cause" is. People that say I dont care and then go on a tyraid only show how much they truly do care. Or am I just a vent for your hate towards people who dont think everyone should be armed to the teeth?

Again I see school is evil to you. That is something that only  you know what I am not even gonna go there. Have a good day lasz and try to lighten up. Not being able to get MG's from wally world at 3 am doesnt mean its the end of the world, nor does it mean I want to ban all guns. Try to remember that next time we discuss guns.

[lazs2]

LOL... you admit that you haven't read the federalist papers or the DOJ report...  

Machine guns?  until 1968 you could own a solothurn or a lahti... it was a 20MM semi auto cannon and could be bought for $100-200 dollars  the ammo could be bought and shipped for $500 a thousand rounds... HE and armor piercing.....  I shot several of em..  These things could take out an armored car or semi truck or...

I need an education?   One person could cause a lot of damage?  how much damage could one of those babies cause?  No... how much did they cause?   You are the bright boy... thousands of such cannon were sold here... can you give me the numbers on the slaughter?

Machine guns....1934... anyone could own em.   a few gangs of destitute bank robbers and rum runners used em for crime... in truth... they killed very few people... a handful compared to handguns and rifles and shotguns..  the killing stopped allmost the second that another ban was lifted... the ban on booze was repealed (another bad law).   lots of machine guns are out there... tell me about the slaughter..

How it worked was...  A bunch of feds had no job when prohibition was repealed... they needed a new boogey man... there were 2-6 MILLION  machine guns in the country and everyone knew that no one would pay 2-20 times the price of the gun for the privlige of having the governments blessing.... several million criminals were CREATED out of thin air with a stroke of the pen as only about 1% of the people who owned em trusted the feds enough or had the money to regester for the tax.

I don't care if you like the way I put it or not... Look it up.

As for what I do?  I belong to several organizations that I support with money like the NRA and I vote for pro second amendment candidates...  I call and write my representitives because.... The NRA alerts me to new gun laws being contemplated... ones you probly don't even know are happening..

for instance..  a few weeks ago I called my representitive to tell her to vote no on AB357

and.... like it or not... you are wrong on charging in on criminals in the act of violence... the stats say so... it is 11% chance of getting harmed if you resist with a firearm... the chance is over 50% if you resist criminals with your bare hands.   You are playing the odds in a very foolish way.   But you are big and strong and young you say???   screw all the weak and old and women huh?  is that how you feel about it?  

It's a good life if you don't weaken eh?

As for your airplane example... that is laughable... the price of an airplane is several thousand times the price of the licence.  The tax on machine guns is/was 1 to 20 times more than the product was worth.

If you are so set on wanting to believe what you have been taught then I would say that it would be best that you not do any research and that you dismiss any arguement as being uneducated and abrassive.

lazs

[lazs2]

and... yes... I believe that one sided ecucation by wrote with no personal involvement in research is evil.  I believe that is very close to simple propoganda.

lazs

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Raider179
Free through School Even have off-campus access to it.

Now THAT explains EVERYTHING!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... you admit that you haven't read the federalist papers or the DOJ report...  

Machine guns?  until 1968 you could own a solothurn or a lahti... it was a 20MM semi auto cannon and could be bought for $100-200 dollars  the ammo could be bought and shipped for $500 a thousand rounds... HE and armor piercing.....  I shot several of em..  These things could take out an armored car or semi truck or...

I need an education?   One person could cause a lot of damage?  how much damage could one of those babies cause?  No... how much did they cause?   You are the bright boy... thousands of such cannon were sold here... can you give me the numbers on the slaughter?

Machine guns....1934... anyone could own em.   a few gangs of destitute bank robbers and rum runners used em for crime... in truth... they killed very few people... a handful compared to handguns and rifles and shotguns..  the killing stopped allmost the second that another ban was lifted... the ban on booze was repealed (another bad law).   lots of machine guns are out there... tell me about the slaughter..

How it worked was...  A bunch of feds had no job when prohibition was repealed... they needed a new boogey man... there were 2-6 MILLION  machine guns in the country and everyone knew that no one would pay 2-20 times the price of the gun for the privlige of having the governments blessing.... several million criminals were CREATED out of thin air with a stroke of the pen as only about 1% of the people who owned em trusted the feds enough or had the money to regester for the tax.

I don't care if you like the way I put it or not... Look it up.

As for what I do?  I belong to several organizations that I support with money like the NRA and I vote for pro second amendment candidates...  I call and write my representitives because.... The NRA alerts me to new gun laws being contemplated... ones you probly don't even know are happening..

for instance..  a few weeks ago I called my representitive to tell her to vote no on AB357

and.... like it or not... you are wrong on charging in on criminals in the act of violence... the stats say so... it is 11% chance of getting harmed if you resist with a firearm... the chance is over 50% if you resist criminals with your bare hands.   You are playing the odds in a very foolish way.   But you are big and strong and young you say???   screw all the weak and old and women huh?  is that how you feel about it?  

It's a good life if you don't weaken eh?

As for your airplane example... that is laughable... the price of an airplane is several thousand times the price of the licence.  The tax on machine guns is/was 1 to 20 times more than the product was worth.

If you are so set on wanting to believe what you have been taught then I would say that it would be best that you not do any research and that you dismiss any arguement as being uneducated and abrassive.

lazs

Comparing our culture now in  the US in 2005 with 1930's or 1968 even is laughable. Different worlds, different attitudes. Even though didn't gangsters give law enforcement a big problem back in the 30's because of their "tommy-Guns"?

Private Pilot's license's last time I checked were around 5k. You can buy a plane for only 10x that amount. 50k. That is not several thousand times the price of the license.

As for the slaughter I know it happens. Someone just shot up 6 people here  in atlanta with an AK in a park last week. Here is another one though that is a prime example.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172599480.html

Gunmen armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and a semi-automatic pistol killed one student and injured three others in a New Orleans high school gymnasium on Monday.

According to New Orleans police officials, about 200 students were in the gym when four youths, two of them armed, entered the building.

Their apparent target, Jonathan Williams, was sitting on the sidelines when the gunmen confronted him. They shot repeatedly, hitting him in the head and body.

Three girls also were hit by stray bullets, police said.

Williams died at the scene. The most seriously injured student, a 15-year-old girl, underwent surgery for bullet wounds to both legs. The other two injured girls, both 16, were treated for minor gunshot wounds and released. A fourth student was injured during the rush to escape.

There are plenty more cases like that. The AK-47 seems to be particular favorite of gangs.


Do you ever use a link lasz or do you just pull stuff right off the NRA website. I am not going for any of your stats regarding my risks intervening in a crime. Especially when you are scared to post the source. Why is it that questionable?

Lasz just because I havent read the federalist papers or a DOJ report doesnt mean squat. I already said I plan to so I can be more informed but that I am too busy right now, but you just skip over that.

I am in school to learn, that seems to be a hard concept for you to grasp. I don't take what's spoon fed me, I have been taught to think for myself.