Author Topic: Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra  (Read 2287 times)

Offline texace

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
      • http://www.usmc.mil
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #75 on: October 13, 2002, 02:18:58 AM »
Has anyone really read the Second Ammendment? No where does it state we as a public have the right to bear arms. It states that we are allowed to create and maintain a local militia for defense of the country, and the right to bear arms for that purpose shall not be infringed.

As for outlawing guns...that would go over like a lead balloon. You know how many people in America own guns? Try getting those people to give up their guns just cause some wacko in Maryland starts shooting people. They wouldn't...they would hold on to their rifles and shotguns and pistol with their lives, citing the 2nd Ammendment like no other.

All you gun owners, are you regulating your own militia? Are you setting up an army for defense of the country? We as Americans have slightly misinterpreted the 2nd Ammendment to the point where we find it unconstitutional to take away our guns. However, the Supreme Court has stated that the gov't CAN regulate firearms if they see fit. CCW permits make it harder too, as they give you the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, giving you another way of taking the life of fellow humans.

Think about it...if you got mad at someone to the point where you pull your weapon out. That's all it takes to become like this guy in Maryland. The ease at which someone can get any kind of weapon in this country means that this guy culd be using any kind of weapon. They've identified the bullet as .223...what is that, 7.62mm? I'd think this guy could buy a hunting rifle or a civilian M-16 or M-14 (the non auto ones) and have a perfectly "legal" firearms to use in his spree.

To those of you living in the sniper's hot zone...please be careful. Tell your loved ones you love them...cause as bad as it seems, you never know.

Offline CavemanJ

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #76 on: October 13, 2002, 02:26:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by texace
CCW permits make it harder too, as they give you the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, giving you another way of taking the life of fellow humans.


Ya know.. I remember way back when FL was considering concealed carry permits all the nay-sayers and anti-gun nuts were predicting the end of life as it was then known in FL.  Vigilante posses, murder rates sky rocketing, etc etc etc.

The posses never showed up, and capital/violent crime went down.  Gonna have to go dig through my collection and see if I can find it so I can give ya the issue/date, but I recall reading an interview with a gang member in FL who was in jail, and the gang member said thier preferred targets were tourists, because the gang knew the tourists didna have guns.

/shrug

.223 is 5.56mm, amongst others.  M16/AR15 is .223/5.56mm

Offline Thud

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #77 on: October 13, 2002, 08:21:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2

the neatherlands... LOL!!! I love it when some white as a sheet netherlander get's on here and talks about what we ought to do in our country.   Every single person in his country looks just like him and was raised just like him and works under the same government blanket..  he wouldn't last 10 minutes in a couple of places I could drop him off in over here.   Not a good thing but... a fact of life.  
 


Why do you assume I am white as a sheet, I'm a not even caucasian, you moron. And well, you've clearly proven that you're all but an undeducated moron who does not bother to find anything out about things, cultures, countries or people that are more than 100 miles away from his trailerpark. And finally there are a lot more places which would kill you in 10 seconds, i.e. all situations in which some form of coherent thought is necessary to get out. Making tough statements on the IN, LOL

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #78 on: October 13, 2002, 10:26:24 AM »
thud... the Unites States is not the neatherlands.   You are the one who is taking your local situation and projecting it on us.   That is fine but...  I certainly don't need your input on what our laws should be based on an entirely different situation.

Hmm uneducated?  Moron?  trailer park?   doesnt bother to find out about other cultures more than 100miles etc ...?   who is making all the assumptions here?

I'm sorry but the thought of huge street gangs led by the likes of "sven" and doing drive-bys in the netherland ghettos is just too precious.
lazs

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #79 on: October 13, 2002, 02:26:00 PM »
Has anyone really read the Second Ammendment? No where does it state we as a public have the right to bear arms. It states that we are allowed to create and maintain a local militia for defense of the country, and the right to bear arms for that purpose shall not be infringed.


............................. .........


There is too much information available to refute the above statement here.  However, our Constitution consistently associates "rights" with individuals, and "powers" and "authority" with governments/states, i.e., governments don't have rights, people do.

For more information, here is a link:

A Primer On The Constitutional Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Here is a link on our 2nd Amendment: The Original Perspective

Our 2nd Amendment: The Original Perspective


Les

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #80 on: October 13, 2002, 03:08:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fatty
Christ Thud, I know Europe is an overpopulated mess, but you cannot be so ignorant as to think there is nothing more to the United States than sidewalks and parks.


Thud's viewpoint is one of pre- 1689 British Bill of Rights, before James II was deposed.  You must remember, European society at that time was heavily weighed in favor of the aristocracy... not the common man, thus his reference to game wardens and law enforcement having sole rights to possess firearms.  This, in effect, disarmed the common populace until 1689, where the right of self defense was acknowledged by the British Bill of Rights.  

His "normal society", as described in his post, would have been an early 17th Century aristocracy.

Not sidewalks and parks Fatty, though you're on the right track...more like castle estates and heavily guarded hunting lands.


Les

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #81 on: October 13, 2002, 03:30:34 PM »
you liberal anti-gun nuts are a joke, show me in the 1st amendment where it's says i can burn the flag or display obscene "art" in a public place, read me the words, you interpet the 1st admendent with a very broad brush.

but

where the  2nd amendent says , quote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " you say well no it don't realy mean that, it mean that the army can have guns, do you really think they wrote the 2nd amendent just to say the army could have guns??

""the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.""  what word don't you understand? it don't say 'the right of the milita to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

44MAG

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #82 on: October 13, 2002, 05:09:54 PM »
Quote
My point was to show that the right wing may be all for giving up some rights for "security" but against giving up others. You can't have it both ways. Either you keep your rights or you give them up.


And I thought you could see shades of gray.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #83 on: October 13, 2002, 06:30:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2

I'm sorry but the thought of huge street gangs led by the likes of "sven" and doing drive-bys in the netherland ghettos is just too precious.
lazs


ROFL
I'm picturing the kidnappers from the Big Lebowski.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #84 on: October 13, 2002, 10:32:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kieran


And I thought you could see shades of gray.


Sure I can Kieran.

However, in this case, giving up "some" rights is kinda like being "sorta" pregnant, or "almost" a virgin.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #85 on: October 14, 2002, 02:27:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
you liberal anti-gun nuts are a joke, show me in the 1st amendment where it's says i can burn the flag or display obscene "art" in a public place, read me the words, you interpet the 1st admendent with a very broad brush.

but

where the  2nd amendent says , quote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " you say well no it don't realy mean that, it mean that the army can have guns, do you really think they wrote the 2nd amendent just to say the army could have guns??

""the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.""  what word don't you understand? it don't say 'the right of the milita to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

44MAG


You're paraphrasing. It states, "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."

That is the cause of the debate, IMHO... that well regulated militia part. Had the framers of the Constitution worded it as you say above, there would be absolutely no room for argument, nor would there be any room for gun control laws.

As for flag burning, the Supreme court pretty much nailed that one... The proper method of disposing of a flag is to burn it. If you burn it outside on the steps while yelling and screaming, the only difference between this and the the "proper" way is attitude and emotion. Displays of attitude and emotion fall squarely in the 1st Amendment. It's not a "broad brush" at all.

Then there's the obscenity thing... the best the courts can come up with are arguments such as, "I'll know it when I see it." Pretty hard to legislate that. What's obscene to you, may not be obscene to me and vice versa.
sand

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #86 on: October 14, 2002, 02:42:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by texace
Think about it...if you got mad at someone to the point where you pull your weapon out. That's all it takes to become like this guy in Maryland. The ease at which someone can get any kind of weapon in this country means that this guy culd be using any kind of weapon. They've identified the bullet as .223...what is that, 7.62mm? I'd think this guy could buy a hunting rifle or a civilian M-16 or M-14 (the non auto ones) and have a perfectly "legal" firearms to use in his spree.


Had a guy here in town a few years ago... Was really REALLY pissed off at his mother in law. He bought a pistol. Waited the standard amount of time before receiving the weapon. Upon receipt, drove over to her house and shot her. So much for "cooling off.":)
sand

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #87 on: October 14, 2002, 08:45:47 AM »
his mom must be pretty tough if the only way to kill her was with a legal handgun.

leslie... the 2nd does not say "for the purpose of" anywhere... it is you who cannot read.   it says that a well regulated militia is needed.   It says that the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   We are of course breaking that amendment.
lazs

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18796
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #88 on: October 14, 2002, 09:07:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM


Had a guy here in town a few years ago... Was really REALLY pissed off at his mother in law. He bought a pistol. Waited the standard amount of time before receiving the weapon. Upon receipt, drove over to her house and shot her. So much for "cooling off.":)


and if he couldn't get a gun, ya dont think he'd figured out another way to murder his ma-in-law??

:rolleyes:

yep, it was the damn guns fault, not the crack pot son-in-law
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline H. Godwineson

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 551
Washington Sniper Has A Friend In Nra
« Reply #89 on: October 14, 2002, 10:26:50 AM »
Violent crime rates have little to do with the availability, or lack thereof, of firearms.

Japan is often cited by anti-gun zealots as a prime example of why U.S. citizens should not be allowed to possesse guns.

Switzerland is cited by gun-owners as an example of a society where almost every home possesses a firearm.

Both have extremely low rates of violent crime.  There are many differences between the cultures of these two countries.  The one thing they have in common are citizens with a tremendous sense of self-discipline.

So more stringent gun laws, or even gun confiscation, would not guarantee lower violent crime rates in the United States.  Gun confiscation in Britain and Australia have not had the desired effect.  Gun-related crimes have skyrocketed...by as much as 30 to 40 percent.  It seems the criminals didn't turn theirs in.  Because of confiscation, in Australia especially, they have a safer environment in which to carry out their nefarious operations.  The real tragedy of Australia is that, prior to a well-publicized one-of-a-kind event, there was very little gun crime in the land down under.  But liberals in that country seized on that event as justification for fashioning and imposing a series of draconian gun laws.  As a result, it appears that the Aussies are a good deal less secure now than they were before.

Oh...and PLEASE do not cite Europe as an example of an area with sensible gun laws to control violence.  Most west-European nations had strict gun-laws imposed upon them during the late 1930's and early 1940's.  The result was tens of millions of murdered civilians, whose governments turned over lists of gun-owners to the Nazis.  Any citizen in the occupied countries who did not turn in their firearms were arrested and shot.  The Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps only AFTER they were disarmed.  The Nazis hid their true purpose with lies and deceit.  These victims didn't know the danger they were in until too late.

For our liberal friends who would assure me that "It couldn't happen here!" let me state that I do not believe it.  Perhaps it couldn't happen under present circumstances, but what guarantees can you make for the future?

I do not want to have to live in a fortified "old-folks community" when I'm 65 because that is the only way the government can guarantee my safety.  That's the type of situation you would have in the U.S. with an unarmed citizenry.  I don't want to live that way.  I live in a rural environment, away from large centers of population.  It takes the police a good while to respond to a 911 call.  Leave me the ability to provide for my own security.  It's my responsibility anyway, not that of the police.  Their main job is to provide collective security, not individual security.  You cannot even hold them responsible for their inability to protect you.  They cannot be sued in court, at least successfully, for failing to protect us from violent crime.  

If you want to be sheep, so be it.  Just do not require me to live the same way.

Regards, Shuckins