Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman_SBM on March 22, 2001, 05:56:00 PM
-
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.
Student, Gunman Wounded at School Near San Diego (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010322/ts/crime_shootings_dc_4.html)
------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs (http://www.screaminbluemessiahs.org)
The SBM's are hiring! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum11/HTML/000263.html)
-
And your point(if any)???
Cabby
------------------
=44th FS "VAMPIRES"=
"The Jungle Air Force"
Welcome To The Jungle!!!"
-
As individuals we each have a responsibility
to honor and protect the integrity and sanctity of all life.
As a society we must find a solution to these reckless acts against life that do not include the wholesale abandonment of rights enjoyed by all lawful people.
My question is:
Do we have the ability to solve the problem of hatred towards and destruction of life or must we continue with beavioral placebos and watch idly as the tryanny escalates into total chaos?
Y
-
Uh ho, looks like the anti-gun morons had they prayers for another school shooting almost answered again, its time for them to emerge from under their little rocks and squeak and moan and not make any sense as usual.
Keep the guns, lose the criminal/idiots.
i cant believe some IDIOTS still believe that banning guns would actually reduce crime in the US, despite the fact that it has been proven exactly opposite...oh well I guess there couldent be smart people without idiots.
-
Idiots?
Gun Violence: An International Comparison
The United States has weaker firearm regulations and higher numbers of deaths involving firearms than all other industrialized nations, and even most developing nations according to a 1997 study by the United Nations. The study surveyed 49 nations on their firearm legislation, manufacture, and trade regulations, as well as on their rates of firearm crime and death. The following are some comparisons between the U.S. and other nations, found in this study and others:
The United States is one of only two countries – along with the Czech Republic – that does not have a firearm licensing system.
Thirty-five percent of households in the United States possess at east one firearm, over three times the average of other countries surveyed.
The United States is among only 22% of nations responding to the UN survey that do not have regulations regarding the storage of firearms.
While the United States rarely imports illegal firearms, it is one of only three countries who reported "frequent instances" of illegal ex- portation.
Of illegal handguns seized by the Japanese government from 1992 through 1996, 32.9% were manufactured in the United States, more than any other single country.
The total firearm death rate in the United States in 1995 was 13.7 per 100,000 people, three times the average rate among other responding countries, and the third highest, after Brazil and Jamaica.
In 1995, 1,225 people in the U.S. died from firearm accidents. This figure is over three times higher than the average rate of other responding countries.
The U.S. had the highest firearm suicide rate of all the countries surveyed, 7 per 100,000 people in 1995, nearly seven times greater than the average among other responding countries.
Children in the U.S. are 12 times more likely to die from firearm injury than are children in other industrialized nations.
The United States has the highest firearm death and suicide rates of all other industrialized countries.
------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs (http://www.screaminbluemessiahs.org)
The SBM's are hiring! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum11/HTML/000263.html)
-
What do you mean wobble?
-
Everyone focuses on the weapon and forgets the chain of events that led up to the operator of that weapon using it. Where were the parents? How was the child raised. Where were the teachers, the counselors to recognize the warning signs. People don't just get up one day and decide they are going to shoot someone or end their life. There is a series of events that leads up to it.
It is a tragedy to be sure, but everyone wants to look for what they perceive as the easy way out and ban guns. So, the country goes through the debate of gun laws for decades, in the meantime, the social situation worsens. Treat the problems at their source and their wouldn't be a need for further gun control. A disgruntled person without a gun is still disgruntled and dangerous. More effort needs to be made to recognize the high risk individuals and give them the help they need.
------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerrkorps.com)
-
It means wobble has a lot of guns. The more guns he has the more intelligent he becomes. And we know Wobble dont we? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Ill scan a picture of this when I can, but here's what the poster says:
IN 1992 HANDGUNS KILLED
33 PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN
36 IN SWEDEN
97 IN SWITZERLAND
60 IN JAPAN
13 IN AUSTRALIA
128 IN CANADA
AND 13,220 IN THE UNITED STATES
GOD BLESS AMERICA
*picture of a revolver painted with stars and stripes*
IMO, we should also allow people to license and carry swords. After all, if you can carry a gun, why cant I carry my blade? Ewps, I forgot, concealing a blade is a felony.
-
IN 1992 HANDGUNS KILLED
33 PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN
36 IN SWEDEN
97 IN SWITZERLAND
60 IN JAPAN
13 IN AUSTRALIA
128 IN CANADA
AND 13,220 IN THE UNITED STATES
total roadkill data
to think that only 33 people died from handguns is the whole of great britin in an entire year is an utter joke, only belieaveable by idiots who can dillude themselves enough to not have the commin sense to see otherwise.
It is a know fact that GB and the whole of that area distorts and ourtight LIE about their crime stats to such a degree to make one wonder why its not a crime.
In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime
Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law which mandates that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who satisfies certain objective criteria. The law requires that a permit be issued to any applicant who is a resident, at least twenty-one years of age, has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no history of mental illness, and provides evidence of having satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or other competent instructor. The applicant must provide a set of fingerprints, after which the authorities make a background check. The permit must be issued or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout the state, and must be renewed every three years, which provides authorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder still qualifies.
Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the media. The law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other over everyday disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and other slights to their dignity. Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine State" and "Dodge City East" were coined to suggest that the state, and those seeking passage of the law, were encouraging individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish" society.
No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill at will.
Did the dire predictions come true? Despite the fact that Miami and Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate fell in Florida following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon following enactment of similar legislation there. There are, in addition, several documented cases of new permit holders successfully using their weapons to defend themselves. Information from the Florida Department of State shows that, from the beginning of the program in 1987 through June 1993, 160,823 permits have been issued, and only 530, or about 0.33 percent of the applicants, have been denied a permit for failure to satisfy the criteria, indicating that the law is benefitting those whom it was intended to benefit -- the law-abiding. Only 16 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the post-issuance commission of a crime involving a firearm.
Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.
I know you anti-gun morons will favor your made up toejam over these facts, but thats your PROBLEM
It means wobble has a lot of guns. The more guns he has the more intelligent he becomes. And we know Wobble dont we?
wow the nice anti-gun folks pop in with a personal attack, my my arent we tolerent...or maby its because your data is roadkill and a personal attack is all you can muster >>???
-
A LETTER FROM ENGLAND
Like Roger I was a pistol shooter, I had held a shotgun certificate since 1975 and a firearms certificate since 1979. When it became apparent that my sport was to be destroyed for political gain I decided to make a stand and insist that the police obeyed the law.
Roger is wrong in implying that the police have a right to inspect security, this is a misconception held by many shooters, there is no such right under the law as written by Parliament.
In 1997 my shotgun certificate fell due for renewal and when the police firearms department required an ultra vires security inspection I refused to allow it. At this point I must make it clear that they had been happy with my security arrangements for 18 years and I had received a letter from the Assistant Chief Constable (Firearms) to that effect in 1991. When my certificate expired I lodged vital components of my shotguns with a friend; the law refers only to complete shotguns, not components, so we were both in the clear. This dispute related solely to the renewal of my shotgun certificate.
Eventually a 'civilian' employee of the firearms department arrived, unannounced, at my home and informed me that he had my new certificate and was authorised to give it to me after inspecting my security arrangements. I reiterated that he had no legal right to do so and refused him admission, he departed refusing to hand over the certificate.
If this man was a 'civilian' employee what does this make our police? Military, or Para-military?
Some time later I received a telephone call from the Inspector in charge of the firearms department asking to meet me to discuss the matter and we arranged for him to call on me. On the appointed day he arrived with the force armourer and served notice of revocation of both shotgun and firearm certificates seizing all firearms in my possession and the shotgun components, which were not covered by the law.
I appealed the revocation in court and during the hearing it was revealed, when I referred to the letter from the Assistant Chief Constable, that the police had 'lost' my file and could not verify the fact. The judge summed up as follows:
"Your interpretation of the law is correct, the police have no right of inspection. I do not see how they can perform their job without inspecting. Appeal dismissed"
I took legal advice and was informed that a further appeal to a higher court would cost at least £5,000 ($7,500), which I could not afford particularly when I was told that it was unlikely that the appeal court would uphold the law either.
Fortunately I had already removed any pistols I was not prepared to lose from the country and now shoot in a, comparatively, free country.
You may have noted that, in this bastion of democracy, neither the police nor the courts uphold the law over their personal prejudices.
Don't let this happen to you. If something has no paper trail DO NOT GIVE IT ONE.
Privileges can be revoked. Rights can not, as George III found out, but they can be suppressed. To regain our rights would take a revolution; how can I emigrate to America?
Keep up the fight.
Best wishes,
Peter Bridgwood.
************************
Mr Bridgwood is quite correct in saying that it is not a *legal* requirement that the police can inspect gun storage arrangements in the UK, (I've only told you the simplified version). In practice however, if anyone chooses to stand on their legal rights and not allow such an inspection they will meet the same fate as he did. The police will unashamedly use force majeur against him and, generally speaking, the courts will back them. This is the dark underbelly of gun 'control' - apart from the law itself being innately oppressive it allows police officers to make up their own laws without any effective practical redress for the average person.
Briefly, here's another recent 'case study' to emphasize the point.
A retired solicitor (lawyer), not a shooter, owns a .22 rifle for sentimental reasons. When being interviewed in connection with the renewal of his Firearms Certificate, it comes to light that his mother (in her eighties) has access to the keys for his gun safe. 'She's an unauthorized person,' says the police officer pompously. 'Change the locks or we'll not renew.' 'Don't be silly,' replies our solicitor, or words to that effect. However, the Chief Constable is adamant and he refuses to renew the FAC. Our man appeals to Crown Court (expensive) where he loses (as expected). He then goes for a Judicial Review (very expensive - way beyond Mr Average) where he wins. The Chief Constable however, obviously having no crime to deal with in his area and appalled at the prospect of this eighty year old wresting the .22 rifle from its rack and careening across the county in a reign of terror, insists on going to the Appeal Court (mega expensive) where, ludicrously, he wins. Our man could then go to the House of Lords but, quite understandably, he has had enough by now, and gives up. No reproach to him, he fought a good fight and he has at least given us a vivid demonstration of just how ridiculous and vindictive our 'common sense' gun laws are.
Just as a matter of interest, our man was no small-time lawyer working out in the sticks. He was a senior partner in the London firm that has for a client no less a person than Her Majesty the Queen. So much for friends in high places, eh?
Cheers, America. Keep on slugging.
Roger Taylor
-
psst wobble. you forgot to quote the " (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) " after the "personal attack" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
If you want to contradict the data, write to Handgun Control Inc. 1225 Eye Street , N.W., Washington DC, 20005.
I find it scary of how vehemently folks want to keep their weapons. I've seen what they do firsthand, so I dont want them around or want one. Keep lobbying to keep your toys, ill keep lobbying to have them taken away for good. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Taken from the UK Daily Telegraph, 7th March 2000
ROYAL LAWYER LOSES GUN PERMIT BATTLE
A retired partner in the Queen's firm of solicitors was properly stripped of
his firearms certificate after he told his 81 year old mother where he kept
the key to his gun safe, three Appeal Court judges ruled yesterday.
The Lord Chief justice, Lord Bingham, said Arthur Farrer had breached the
1989 Firearms Act in failing to keep a secret from his mother.
Mr Farrer's counsel, Mr Richard Beckett, QC, had argued that it ignored
"the real world" to expect gun owners to keep confidential the location of
keys from their closest kin.
Mr Farrer is a former partner at Farrer and Co, the royal solicitors. His
mother lives in a cottage in the grounds of his Essex home in Finchingfield,
Essex, where both he and his brother, James, who lives in Scotland, kept
guns.
Mr Farrer's right to keep the weapons was taken away after police discovered
that he had told his mother where to find the key to his gun cupboard.
His lawyers argued that he had only told his mother where to find the key in
case of an emergency, such as a fire or to help the police in the exercise
of their duties.
Mr Farrer had held a certificate for a .22 rifle since 1961 and a shotgun
licence since 1968. The police never suggested there was any evidence that
his mother ever handled the guns or "expressed any interest in them
whatsoever", the court heard.
Mr Farrer was ordered to pay for the action's heavy legal costs. After his lengthy legal skirmish, he remains convinced that there is an unwritten agenda among civil servants and some senior police officers aimed at ending people's right to "prudent and responsible" ownership of firearms
sorry for the lengthy posts, but posting real data tends to take up more space than stuff you make up.
-
N.Y. A.G. Eliot Spitzer revises the definition of the word "hypocrite"
The story so far: Basically, it goes like this: Smith & Wesson, the famous gun manufacturer now owned by a British corporation, is blackmailed by the Clinton administration into signing a contract in which it promises to provide trigger locks, "smart gun technology," and tracking of sales (among other things) in exchange for protection from government lawsuits. Other gun companies not only tell Impeached President Clinton to stick it up his ass, but denounce Smith & Wesson as the foreign-owned curs they are. Wholesalers say they will no longer sell their products. Their law firm leaves them. More importantly, thousands of gun owners say they will never buy another Smith and Wesson product as long as they live.
Impeached President Clinton is clearly stung by this attitude and refusal to bend over and accept the Presidential shaft. He circles the wagons around his newly-found friend Smith & Wesson, to protect them against the Evil Gun Lobby. Why is everyone against him? Why, it must be a conspiracy! Enter Eliot Spitzer.
No one really knows what "illegal antitrust activity" might be, since there's no such thing, but this doesn't stop Spitzer.
No fan of the NRA (or freedom, for that matter) Spitzer has declared that he will use his office to bring both gun companies and gun owners in line. ''We have the capacity to squeeze manufacturers like a pincers and hurt them in the marketplace,'' said Spitzer ''We are bigger than the NRA (National Rifle Association).'' On 16 March Spitzer called on local, state and federal government officials to form a coalition that will, in effect, boycott gun manufacturers who fail to adhere to the new "safety code."
Note that when the government arranges it, it's a "boycott," and when anyone else does it, it's "the specter of illegal antitrust activity." Serious stuff, says he
-
HERE IS FOR ALL YOU WHO WANT TO SEE A HANDGUN COMMIT A CRIME LIVE!
ITS THE SMITH AND WESSON CAM!
http://www.frenchu.com/start.html (http://www.frenchu.com/start.html)
-
It wasn't a car or truck. It wasn't boat or a trailer.
It was a Romanian typewriter. Before they left the factory, or entered the country, each one had a sheet of paper carefully insterted and typed on. This sheet was then removed, marked with the model and serial number, and stored away in a Romanian government file cabinet.
Later, if an anti-government tract was discovered, the police could trace the owner of the typewriter through the sheets they had made when it was new, and arrest the author.
"That would never happen here," you say. "We have the Bill of Rights."
"Yeah," reply gun owners. "That's what we thought
-
Interview with member of british legeslature with the Sunday Times(he would not do interview unless his name was kept out of it)
"We are trying to determine the best way to take people's minds off the fact that the gun ban here in the UK hasnt had any effect except to increase crime,"
Well there, I got it out of my system.. i know all you anti-gun folks will ignore or deny all these facts and other data..mainly because its the truth which is your known enemy, or maby you will come up with some clever personal insults to avoid facing the issue..oh well, im done with this thread. America will always have guns, trying to have them banned/confiscated would result in a second civil war, so no matter what we will ALWAYS have them, we will never be in the situation of GB where the goverment has outright told us we do not have the right to defend ourselves, and then have to try to dillude ourselves into thinking that thats right.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 03-22-2001).]
-
Wobble,
you can surely carry this thread by yourself. No opponent necessary (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
But of course I'm on your side, just could not resist to make a flippant comment.
-
Hmmm... pro-gun types go to What have you done today... for freedom? (http://www.frenchu.com/start.html)
Anti-gun types can go to The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (http://www.csgv.org).
Doesn't really matter.. you can find "facts" to support either argument.
As for "personal attacks", I think wobble threw the first volley with:
i cant believe some IDIOTS still believe that banning guns would actually reduce crime in the US, despite the fact that it has been proven exactly opposite...
That would make me one of the idiots. :P
I'm with Tac... Keep lobbying to keep your toys, ill keep lobbying to have them taken away for good.
Oh... and IMHO, anecdotal evidence and anonymous legislative opinions don't mean toejam.
Michael A. Bellesiles: An astoundingly high level of personal violence separates the United States from every other industrial nation. To find comparable levels of interpersonal violence, one must examine nations in the midst of civil wars or social chaos. In the United States of America in the 1990s, two million violent crimes and twenty-four thousand murders occurred on average every year. The weapon of choice in 70 percent of these murders was a gun, and thousands more are killed by firearms every year in accidents and suicides. In a typical week, more Americans are killed with guns than in all of Western Europe in a year.
------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs (http://www.screaminbluemessiahs.org)
The SBM's are hiring! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum11/HTML/000263.html)
[This message has been edited by Sandman_SBM (edited 03-22-2001).]
-
If Hitler hadn't built up such an armory of weapons, if Sadam Hussein hadn't built up such an arsenal of weapons, etc...
A shooting is nothing more than a small war. Take the weapons away and you will not have a war.
Any IDIOT can understand that.
fscott
-
And I'm sure that when they ban guns, all the criminals will walk right up and hand theirs over. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
No one wants to take responsiblity for the circumstances that lead to people commiting violent crimes. Everyone wants to push the blame onto an inanimate object.
------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerrkorps.com)
-
Not exactly Fscott.
You cannot prevent a criminal or psycho from killing. I agree with the fact that if someone wants a gun he will get it illegally regardless. However, making it illegal will drastically reduce the number of armed psychos and criminals out there. I dare wobble or any gun fanatik to get hard data on how many crimes are commited with legally acquired guns vs. black market guns. I bet the legally acquired ones will take more thank 70% of the pie. After all, why not? A non-resident (INS paperwork being processed), recent arrival from one of the worlds most violent countries (and from the most violent city in said country) can come into the US and 2 months later legally buy a glock, a shotgun and explosive tip ammo and get himself the license to carry the weapons around. Its so easy its LAUGHABLE. Did I mention the weapons are also incredibly cheap? 300 bucks for a pistol! 180 for a 9mm carbine! No wonder kids can save their lunch money or their burger flipping paycheck and have the money to buy one.
Like I said before, why is it illegal to carry a sword in public when it is legal to carry a concealed shotgun (with permit and all that crap)?? Why isnt there a "permit" to carry swords? Oh let me guess, that famous ammendment does not include blade weapons? Can anyone answer that one?
-
"And I'm sure that when they ban guns, all the criminals will walk right up and hand theirs over."
Nope. Yet things have to start somewhere.
"No one wants to take responsiblity for the circumstances that lead to people commiting violent crimes. Everyone wants to push the blame onto an inanimate object"
An inanimate object that makes 1 person have the power to kill more than a dozen others, maybe more depending on the weapon.
People will commit crimes regardless. Its the tools that they can legally buy by LAW that makes them so dangerous.
When was the last time you saw someone become a mass murderer by going into a mcdonalds with a kitchen knife? Or with a car?
-
Sorry all, long post. Shouldn't have started to post when real tired. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Fscot,
What would you call those little things that happened before the invention of firearms??? I suppose according to your definition there was no such thing as "war". Perhaps you should tell that to those folks who were involved in minor disturbances like the crusades.
TAC and Sandman,
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. None here are saying you may not say what you wish. If they did no doubt you would be up and enraged saying that your "right" to speak is being infringed. How dare anyone tell you what to do or say or think, correct?
Why do you feel you have the "right" to impose your personal phobias on others? I have not seen anything in your posts saying you have a power of omniscience that grants you the honor of telling others how to live.
Why do I say these thing? Simple. You rail against those who have done nothing to harm another with their belongings. There are many laws in this country to be used for those who do harm to others. If one person harms another that person should be punished under the law. That does not mean the others in the same area of the community should also suffer penalties for the transgressions of another. To punish those who have not violated any laws, caused no harm to another (unlawfully) and are simply living as they see fit under the precepts of the constitution is not an exercise of freedom. It is an exercise of tyranny.
Earlier in the last century this country embarked on a crusade to legislate morality and see that the populace lived a "proper" life according to a few who felt they knew better. It is more commonly known as prohibition. Now the consumption of alcohol is rarely necessary for health or life. There are certainly more efficacious items to consume to gain the benefits of health. For that matter, with the exception of using alcohol for sterilization or as a gasoline additive (potential substitute) there is little real "need" to have it around. Yet this experiment in legislation made more felons of the out of the population of America than any other situation to date. It gave us a nation of scofflaws, organized crime and a massive legal fit trying to comply with the ramifications of the effects of prohibition. After a while this was seen for the idiocy it was and prohibition was ended.
We do have a carry over from this same kind of situation. It is called "the war on drugs". I seldom see a week go by that I see some "learned" person or prison inmate railing against this war. They call for an end to criminalization of drugs. They say it is a farce that there is a plethora of drugs in the U.S. and that the war is a failure. Now why should we stop? There is no real therapeutic use for heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines (in "recreational uses") and for that matter to a lesser extent, smoked marijuana. (THC can be isolated and used in pill form for cancer patients). These substances have a known and lengthy record of causing harm to the users, their families and those who happen to be in the area when the users have a reaction or problem while under the influence. The users of these substances range in age from the aged (old hippies?) to the young in elementary school. In dealing with this kind of person I have asked them why they use such a thing as heroin. Their response was that they liked it and wanted to continue using it.
Why do I bring this up? Simple. This is a type of "thing" that has no real useful purpose, has caused no end of hardship and heartache and has been medically proven to be injurious and or lethal. In short, there is absolutely no rational reason to have them available for the population to use as "recreation". Yet there are many calling for the laws banning these items to be taken out of the system and to make them readily available, even governmentally licensed for use.
Why is it OK to call for the legalization of substances, many of which are known to be lethal and have no purpose for benefiting people other than to "let them feel good" and to ban firearms which can and do have a purpose?
I have carried a firearm most of my adult life, it was a part of my career. I have seen what they can do when misused. I have not harmed another with any of my firearms. I have also dealt with others that had weapons, some of which were not using them for legal purposes.
I have also seen what the misuse of drugs, alcohol, automobiles even bicycles can do. Should they all be banned as well? I have been injured more than once by a person misusing a car and have a disability thanks to a negligent driver. In one of those situations it was a drunk driver that hit me. I have personal experience in trying to enforce laws governing the use these items. I do not advocate the legalization of drugs. I will speak out against it because of my experiences.
In regards to the other items I listed, I do not feel that those who do not misuse them should be penalized simply because I was harmed by someone who did. Only those who do cause harm with them should be punished.
A final note. One of the people advocating firearm banishment indicated he likes swords. A fellow Army Officer (My CO in my last unit) had to help his son recover from a near fatal stabbing from a sword. This happened at the local university and was an unprovoked act. Perhaps people who own swords and other large bladed weapons should have them confiscated. There is no justifiable reason for anyone to own one in today's society. Is there?
Mav
-
TAC,
I believe I saw a very small article in the paper the other week about a kid who deliberately drove his car into a group of kids from his high school. It didn't have nearly the news "appeal" of a firearms story so it didn't make the front page.
BTW I think the U.S. is still the leader in deaths from automobiles in the world. I think the stats still show about 35 to 40k a year.
The penalty for killing a person with a motor vehicle ranges from a traffic ticket to several years in prison. By far the majority do not go to prison for a lengthy period if at all. Ask Teddy Kennedy.
Mav
-
A retired solicitor (lawyer), not a shooter, owns a .22 rifle for sentimental reasons. When being interviewed in connection with the renewal of his Firearms Certificate, it comes to light that his mother (in her eighties) has access to the keys for his gun safe. 'She's an unauthorized person,' says the police officer pompously. 'Change the locks or we'll not renew.' 'Don't be silly,' replies our solicitor, or words to that effect. However, the Chief Constable is adamant and he refuses to renew the FAC. Our man appeals to Crown Court (expensive) where he loses (as expected). He then goes for a Judicial Review (very expensive - way beyond Mr Average) where he wins. The Chief Constable however, obviously having no crime to deal with in his area and appalled at the prospect of this eighty year old wresting the .22 rifle from its rack and careening across the county in a reign of terror, insists on going to the Appeal Court (mega expensive) where, ludicrously, he wins. Our man could then go to the House of Lords but, quite understandably, he has had enough by now, and gives up. No reproach to him, he fought a good fight and he has at least given us a vivid demonstration of just how ridiculous and vindictive our 'common sense' gun laws are.
TheWobble I've a simple answer to your posts :DURA LEX SED LEX
You Got it ?
(http://saintaw.cyberspace.be/straffo_sig.gif)
-
Tac, what I'm getting at is we need to take a long look at the social situations that push these people to commit the crime. It's much better to prevent a disease than wait and try to stop it later.
On a side note: Cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year in the United States. Let's ban them while we're at it.
------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerrkorps.com)
-
Every time when firearms & violence are discussed all the pro-firearm oriented people state that exactly the persons who actually use their guns (i.e. shoot someone) won't give up their guns and keep them illegally. This is their argument which for them implies that banning guns won't have any effect on firearms violence.
Of course this doesn't make any sense at all because lots and lots of shootings involve people who are no criminals (up till then) and for some reason find it necessary to shoot someone. If these people couldn't instantly draw their weapon in the heat of let's say an argument they would rethink themselves before they would go out and buy a clandestine gun and do it anyways. So banning adds another barrier and makes impulsive gunviolence less likely. Furthermore everybody who would still carry could be prosecuted this meaning that criminals with illegal firearms run a much greater risk than now, now they probably have a license although they're prepared to use their weapons, then anybody with an illegal weapon is caught.
P.S. I know that the majority of gunowners are responsible enough to handle those weapons but banning makes it more difficult for the moron minority among them to do others harm. In this case the majority has to give up their rights but get more safety in return.
------------------
Thud1/Bies
Bring the Hurricane (MKIIC) to AH! (together with the Invader!)
[This message has been edited by Thud (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel:
On a side note: Cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year in the United States. Let's ban them while we're at it.
Humans and the habit no matter how dangerously something is, humans continues nevertheless (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Okay, I'm not going to talk about guns, or amendments. What I want to know is why children from the USA are killing their fellow students? I'm not hearing much about this happening in other industrialized nations, so I might be able to assume that these school shooting incidents are way out of proportion to anything happening elsewhere.
As far as I can tell the type of kids that are doing this are really no different from kids from another country. So, why the tendency in the USA for such amazing bloodshed?
What about our society has created this? And it can only be our society that has done this, because it's happening in different places, and with different classes of people. What is it about American values, American principles, that has breeded this very disturbing sociopathic trait? And if nothing is done to explore, understand, and cure this sociological flaw in America, then I'm afraid to think of what new, and more horrible direction this trait will evolve into ...
And, no, I'm not flying off the handle - I'm very serious. Really think about what's happening in this country, and bear in mind that we are supposed to be a civilized nation that values freedom, and equality.
-
I blame the Democrats and WB.
-
Leonid, freedom, equality, respect and responsibility are ideals only. Let's look at "what-is":
Let's take a hypothetical child, we'll call him Sam. Sam emerges into the world at birth, gets a slap on the ass, gets bundled up and placed in a crib under a bright light like a "Whopper" under the heat lamps at Burger King. Welcome to Earth!
Sam's mother decides not to breast feed because she intends to go back to work in 90 days. Sam will be cast about with various relatives until he can enter a proper day care center.
Anthropologists studying native people have found that the infant never leaves its mothers presence. The first seven years of life are critical for forming the foundation of security that's absolutely necessary to lead a healthy existence.
Once Sam starts school he's thrown into a cookie cutter system which will shape him to become a future corporate cube drone. To do this individuality and initiative are squashed. Regimentation and repetitive memorization are the order of the day. Sam is also taught to compete and compare himself with others, which further degrades his self-esteem.
Sam's larger world consists of a dysfunctional government, which develops new types of germ warfare, stockpiles nuclear weapons and spends billions on Missile Defense Systems. Sam's country also routinely executes its citizens teaching the lesson that life is cheap.
So far I've been describing a healthy child. Let's throw alcoholic and/or abusive parents into the mix.
You see, our society creates these little monsters but we don't have the courage to really look at ourselves. We'd rather blame guns and install metal detectors at school entrances. We then send these kids off to do adult time in prison. What kind of a walking nightmare will emerge from the prison system after these youngsters have spent their formative years with criminals as role models!
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel:
On a side note: Cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year in the United States. Let's ban them while we're at it.
Just quit smoking this week after 2 years of doing it.
The problem arises from the family structure we have today. DO to the double icome and the womans influx into the job market, who/what is teaching our children the morals and guidace they so desperately need at home? I asked my mother about this and she whole heartedly agrees the woman needs to stay at home and watch the children and taking on a lesser role in the work environment. As she says when your children are gone and out of the house then you can think about yourself and go on with your life. What we have now has evolved into this explosive debate on equal rights and women's lib. They feel compelled now to succeed, to show that it was for a reason. Do I look down upon a woman that stays home and watches the family? not in the least bit I have more respect for them, for it is a much harder job then our standard 9-5 job. It is a 24 hour job. It might sound like I have old school values, but I am only 28 and saw the trend that has led to what we see today, it started with the freshman class as I was graduating High School. Gangsters being glorified on MTV and the news and movies is this really what we want our children to become? You see it now with their baggy jeans and their music. I know the old adage you kids listening to that crazy rock and roll, but did it ever have in the lyric's about killing the cops or raping women? From what I see we turn our headds to this as if it doesn't exist, it does and frankly I am ashamed sometimes to live in this country. I served for the military, and it increased the love I had for this country, but the people are somewhat a farce as to what this country really is. face it banning guns won't stop crimes but make it easier for the criminals to commit them. Why don't you head to the upper peninsula of Michigan and tell them they have to get rid of their guns. LOL the highest per household of guns in the US is up there, and Michigan has the largst militia in the US as well. Least thats what I read about the militia. Only thing that will solve crimes is to either get rid of the good samaritan crap the courts give out, aka getting out on good behavior award. Harsh sentences for crimes, "Death Penalty should not take 10-15 years" A weekly prison drawing your name comes up you get to play russian roulette. Crimes commited while insame, easy fix put them out of their mysery. Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns.
------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
-
Wooo Wooo! Oh Boy, and I just bought a new lawn chair (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It's been a while since there has been a good opinion and statistics (read facts twisted to support anyone's point of view) thread in the oclub.
New Mexico passed a concealed weapons law recently crime rates are already dropping.
That would make a person think if they did not have a pre-disposed agenda to fight for (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I urge both sides to keep up the fight, for right, truth, justice, and the American way or repression, control of those you disagree with, alibing the human factor out of the equation etc. etc. but most of all for my amusement (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
PS some good arguments above, how about some good solutions?
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
[This message has been edited by MrBill (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
Riding my ZX-6R in Arizona with a Glock on my side made motorists think twice when I passed them to mess with me, or the pack. Felt kind of weird though pack of 8 and 6 of us had guns on our sides. Ah the good old days. Never used it but I did use my kickstand on a guys mirror once doing 70 on the highway. Kept the kick stand in my back pocket, simple bolt you unscrewed voila instant road jack bellybutton deterent. Another nice trick is to keep a pocket full of change, makes a nice shiney rain of change on someones hood. Did this do to a pickup truck tailgateing a friends back tire at 2 feet doing 75 on the highway. I am sure you would ask why didn't he move or accelerate away? Simple reason we were boxed in and Speed limit in AZ is 75. Needless to say 75-100 pennies will do some severe hood damage when you pass him doing over 100.
------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
-
deleted
[This message has been edited by MrBill (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Thud:
In this case the majority has to give up their rights but get more safety in return.
"Those who would give up any essential measure of freedom for some perceived safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
-
OOps
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
-
What about our society has created this?
What is it about American values, American principles, that has breeded this very disturbing sociopathic trait?
And if nothing is done to explore, understand, and cure this sociological flaw in America, then I'm afraid to think of what new, and more horrible direction this trait will evolve into ...
====================
You have asked the question that no one seems to be able or want to answer.
I believe that we as a nation have largely abandoned the values that once made us a great nation. A belief in God and Christ.
I know people hate to hear this but its the one thing I keep coming back to.
Yeager
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel:
And I'm sure that when they ban guns, all the criminals will walk right up and hand theirs over. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
No one wants to take responsiblity for the circumstances that lead to people commiting violent crimes. Everyone wants to push the blame onto an inanimate object.
Preach on brother Raubvogel. This issue is one that will be debated for a long time. I personally own 2 firearms. One is a 20 gauge shotgun that I use for dove and quail hunting and shooting skeet from time to time and the other is a semi-antique 44 magnum pistol that I hardly ever fire. Saying that guns are the cause is just a cop-out. There is more to this than just a gun being involved....people need to take responsibility for their actions and place the blame where it belongs.
------------------
Sling322
Not a Monitor!
Fat Drunk Bastards
-
I don't believe in God but I believe in myself. I do not pressure anyone nor do I like to be pressured on this issue. Believing in God was a motivator of fear. Fear in what would happen to you when you passed on. Now that people analyze it and comes to their own conclusions they feel there is no suffering in the afterlife. Morals have been shot to hell, TV evangelists IMO have ruined it looking only for money and not the true meaning of the church. Right there is the main key why I stopped believing. Was a Presbyterian going to a catholic grade school, in 6th grade the pastor left the PB and we got a new one, father was high in the church and he got wind of what was going on in a meeting. All they cared about was the money in essence. My father left and it left a bitter pill for me to swallow. The church has always been about money/politics/power going back 1000's of years. The answer is not God, but the individual to take upon himself the responsibility to do good. Remember no one made you jump off that bridge, or pull that trigger. Just seems some are lacking in the Noggen department.
------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
-
Wobble - I'd like to say your myopic viewpoint surprises me, but sadly it doesn't.
It is a know fact that GB and the whole of that area distorts and ourtight LIE about their crime stats to such a degree to make one wonder why its not a crime.
A fact you provide not a shred of dispassionate evidence to substantiate? A letter from an aggrieved English gun owner does not really count. Find me information from an objective source, preferably a UN affiliated organisation dealing with crime statistics and I might start to take you seriously. If you don't believe UK crime reports, why should I believe US statistics?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
I don't believe in God but I believe in myself
====
I make no claims one way or the other. All I point out is that for better or for worse, America was founded with divine inspiration and guidance.
Today I believe that the majority has rejected
that guidance and inspiration and I simply correlate this to our current condition as a society. I feel it is no coincidence that we are in such a terrible moral condition in these modern times.
That is all.
Y
-
Yeager, I would have to agree, if it meant more stability then I would be all for it. I think we all know what is actually the root of the problem. I won't say it in here but only to family and friends.
------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
-
i don't understand how we can have shooting at schools , everyone knows it's against the law for anyone to bring a gun on school grounds.By the why, it's against the law to shoot people also.
44MAG
-
Yeager, Sturm:
It's individualism triumphant over society. The 'I'm alright, Jack' mentality, if you will.
And it's a spreading sickness. The symptoms are an over-litigious body of lawyers, the downright contempt people have for other people and the lack of any compassion for people less well off than themselves. The worship of consumerism and capitalism to a point where the belief that 'money is everything' is saturates everything. It's the vanity that seems to pervades our every waking moment.
I hope it's not terminal.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a know fact that GB and the whole of that area distorts and ourtight LIE about their crime stats to such a degree to make one wonder why its not a crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wobble, the government would love to be able to distort the crime figures. Since they came to power 4 years ago crime has gone up a lot, and it would suit them to change the figures. They can't. The figures are independantly compiled.
Killings with handguns have increased in Britain following the total ban introduced in 97. 42 people were mudered with a handgun in the period 1999-2000. Britsih gun law was tight before, with licencing and regulation of firearems. The new government banned handguns outright in 97 and gun crime has gone up since then. Obviously if the government were able to change the crime figures handgun deaths would have declined after they banned them in 97.
Just as an example, the area I live in has around 250,000 people. It has one of the highest rates of car crime in Europe, and burgulary and theft are also high. The last shooting incident was in the late 70s, when a security guard was shot in the leg during an attempted robbery.
-
20 yrs ago.. or longer there where far LESS gun control laws in effect. There are quite a few now. I see more gun violence now than ever before... why? Because its NOT the wep's... its the people. We need to take a good hard look at our society in general and fiqure out WTF is wrong. These gun control lobbies are simply knee jerk reactions to a problem that we've had for sometime now. Minority's have been terrified for what..20 yrs now by gang violence, drugs etc yet its not a true major issue till a middleclass school gets a taste of what many kids have been dealing with for along time. Once again quite trying to lay the blame on a piece of hardware and see WHY this is happening and DEAL with it.
batdog
-
Nashwan - gun crime in the UK is very low, to the point that even if there was a 100% increase, it would be pretty insignificant.
The other day, there was a story on the national news that someone had called the police because they had seen an individual carrying a hand-gun. After a multitude of armed police, police dogs and regular police had swept the area they found a single replica firearm. As long as this continues to be seen as an event demanding national media coverage, I know we have the right approach to the control of fire-arms.
-
"Tac, what I'm getting at is we need to take a long look at the social situations that push these people to commit the crime. It's much better to prevent a disease than wait and try to stop it later."
Agreed. It IS a social issue after all. But in my view, treating the disease (not preventing because its already there) by injecting more poison into the system (read: guns) is at best, a short-term solution. You cannot stop people from becoming criminals, but you can prevent them from having the tools that would give them power over the average person.
"On a side note: Cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year in the United States. Let's ban them while we're at it."
Yep. Notice the great legal battle the tobacco companies fought..and lost in the past years. Its a first step in the right direction.Interesting to note that once the kiddie market was lost, their ad campaigns were increased in foreign nations that dont have such restrictions.
"To punish those who have not violated any laws, caused no harm to another (unlawfully) and are simply living as they see fit under the precepts of the constitution is not an exercise of freedom. It is an exercise of tyranny"
In my view, to endanger those who are living as they see fit by making weapons easily avaliable is an excercise in fear. In the end you will find people not respecting other's rights or property out of respect or civility, but out of fear that the other guy has a weapon (or a bigger one than the one you have). And its not a personal phobia.Its personal experience. Been there, done that, left.
-
I think it's a social issue simply because it sells advertising.
Despite what you see in the main stream media, teen violence is on the decline according to the Justice Department record. In fact, there is less teen violence today than there has been at any time since the mid-1980s.
Per capita, all increases and decreases in teen violence were in crimes that involved firearms. Crimes without firearms has been relatively stable for the past 20 years.
WRT to cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, ticket scalping, etc... I think laws against ALL consensual crimes should be stricken from the books. Simple math... no victim? no crime.
------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs (http://www.screaminbluemessiahs.org)
The SBM's are hiring! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum11/HTML/000263.html)
-
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.
OK, Who do you think the Militia is supposed to keep the state free from????
If the Federals job is the provide for the common defense, just who do you think they (the writers) were worried about?
And please don’t try to say that the NG is militia, they work for the CIC. I am not saying anything bad about them it’s just that they have been federalized.
PC
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
Uh ho, looks like the anti-gun morons had they prayers for another school shooting almost answered again,
Quite possibly the most stupid, inflammatory and offensive remark I've ever read on a BBS.
So Wobble, you actually believe that those who oppose unrestricted gun ownership are HAPPY that there has been another incident?
You must have an extremely small noodle.
-
Originally posted by PC:
And please don’t try to say that the NG is militia, they work for the CIC.
PC
wrong, the national guard works for the state it is assigned under. However Control off units can be had by the SecDef through channels. Happens today in Northern Watch, Southern Watch, etc..
-
Jeykl I am curious how would you know?
You must have an extremely small noodle. your quote to Wobble.
------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
-
Some old fed document somewhere described the militia as any able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 65 (although I think the sup court back in the 1890s set a different standard that dragged the armed gaurd and naval reserve into the picture...dont quote me Im not sure at the moment).
For me I think having an armed populace keeps the government in line, keeps them wary of treading on people without justification.
I hate it when people use guns against other people without just cause, like self defense, because it makes the rest of us gun owners look like accomplices which we are not.
JMO
Y
-
"For me I think having an armed populace keeps the government in line, keeps them wary of treading on people without justification"
If the government wants to tread on you without justification, it will. It wont knock on your door with guns (though the Gonzales family may disagree with me), nor will it make it public that they are after you for no reason.
If they wanted to tread on you, you may find a fully documented, evidence-backed problem with the IRS claiming that you have not paid taxes in 20 years, screw your credit over, etc etc. There are many ways for a government to tread on you. How do you think the FBI handled the gangsters? Wasn't Capone framed by the govt in the same way (to pressure him to make mistakes)?
Also, an armed populace a threat? Hardly.
-
A rehash of an old thread or two.
I won't bother to restate what I've already posted in those threads.
Why does this school stuff keep happening?
Because there's no real accountability for the perpetrators. The Media Circus gives them their 15 minutes of fame which could look pretty glamorous to "copycats".
The Media never shows these deviates 15 years later after they've been someone's "wife" in prison for most of that time. Probably wouldn't look so glamorous then.
All the metal detectors and new laws aren't going to stop this. Take away the guns, they will crash into crowds with cars, as has already been demonstrated.
It will stop when the punishment is perceived as too onerous to contemplate. In a nation where there is no longer any personal accountability or responsibility (Ex: I did NOT have sex with that woman!) that will never happen.
Learn to live with it. It's the USA we all allowed to happen when we abandoned the basic principles of right and wrong, crime and punishment.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
TAC don't get me started on the Gonzalas family, that was well with-in the Governments rights, and that picture clearly shows the gun was not pointed at the kid but not going to get into that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)...Anyhow, the reason teen violence is happening? Look at todays society...I am in highschool, 17, and I for one know that role-models these days suck, I am subjected to a world of irresponsible people who do not have the guts to take responsibility for their actions and themselves. First off, Bill Clinton (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif), he had an affair lied about it and then lied about it UNDER OATH, perjurized and was not sent to jail and never did get in trouble for it. Never once taking responsibility for his actions (don't tell me his apology was it, that was total BS, I watched it too) average people blame it on someone else, its societies morals and actions as a whole that has affected the generations. Its not music, movies, or video games, its societies role-models, morals, and actions as a whole that have desicrated our youth in general..
<S>
Pup out
-
Yeager & Sturm,
Though I don't believe in 'God' in the classical judeo-christian sense, I do agree we have a common ground about the loss of morals and principles in the USA. I thinking Dowding hit it on the head when he said, "It's individualism triumphant over society." Somehow, we need to get back to a point where our main concern is not only how others affect 'me', but just as important, how 'I' affect others. And while I do not practice a christian religion, anyone who sincerely practices the spirit of these religions cannot be lacking in compassion. Like Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
-
Society has lost it's fear. That's the problem.
I suppose you could interchange that with respect but that's whats happened. But in this respect it's basically fear when you come right down to it.
No fear of authority figures, religous figures, laws, taboos, parents, etc etc.
-
Y'all don't need to worry about a thing. We've got Dubya and Johnny Ashcroft runnin' this ship now, and we're going to put respect and family values back in the hearts and minds of our citizens faster'n you can say "One Nation Under God."
In just a little bit, the only ones being shot will be limp-wristed little liberal pansies that are trying to take away guns from good, honest, decent, God-fearing folk as they watch Big Business solve all the country's problems, and create a never-ending Nirvana for us all.
"...and I'd like to thank Mk10 for being here this evening. He's a good man...an honest man...and I'm proud to be in his company tonight. Hey, Mk, put down the beer when I'm talkin' to ya...and that girl sittin' on your lap...looks a little young to be your wife doesn't she?"
Seriously though, we all know how to solve this problem. Start talking to your damn kids, and stop alienating them so they start thinking like a bunch of damn Goths with a suicide complex.
If you've got guns and children in the same house, use a gun safe, gun locks, etc.
If you have to sleep with a loaded handgun under your pillow, or in your side table drawer, then you're going to have to live with the consequences.
If it's in a locked gun safe, or has a trigger blocking lock mechanism, the only way someone can be hurt with it is if they throw it at them.
Mk
-
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." Am I a "Wayne-ist"? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
My children have grown up around guns. The only time they've had one in their hands they've either been target shooting or hunting.
They know exactly what happens when you pull a trigger...and they know absolutely that once discharged, the shot can never be called back.
Haven't had a single problem with my sons and guns. Not at home and not in the field.
Doubt that I ever will. I suspect that their sons and daughters never will have problems either.
It didn't just happen that way by accident though. They're my sons and I'm accountable and responsible for how they were raised. Their mother didn't work so that someone would always be there when they got home.
It's neat and easy to blame the inanimate object though, isn't it?
Good thing we banned all the rocks after Cain whacked Abel. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
[/b]
While these might seem comfortably absolute, they are on closer inspection anything but.
I'm sure there are plenty of people around who if you so even looked at them, they'd spit in your face. Or if you stood on their foot accidently, they'd give you a good kicking. They would still be adhering to Wayne's code of conduct in their eyes, wouldn't they? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Dowding,
No.
-
It's a matter of perspective and personal values. So of course it is.
-
Only in your perspective. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
You need to watch more JW movies. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Ammo, I am sure we could argue who really controls the National Guard all day, I will decline, as recent history speaks for its’ self.
PC gets on soapbox:
The right to keep and bear arms in the USA has absolutely nothing to do with sport shooting, hunting or even protecting ones home. You have to keep in mind what the writers of our wonderful constitution had been through and what they had on there minds.
There was a battle over whether to create a strong Federal government or not, even before our revolution. We nearly did not prevail and as a result, they decided that a government stronger than a confederation was needed. Fortunately, for all of us, they worked out the government that we used to have. These guys, even then, were not sure that they had done the right thing. That they had created something that one day might turn on and oppress its citizens, hence we have the Bill of Rights. . In reading our US Constitution, as Toad obviously has, you see many checks on power. This has come to be known as “Checks and Balances” and from this you can see that they were concerned about the possibility that this government would turn out like all the others had before.
Now, the people that wrote this had just risked their very lives to over throw what was a legitimate government and understood what it took them to win. So being afraid of what they created and knowing how to get rid of it just in case, they wrote the first two amendments. These two amendments have every thing to do with throwing off what Thomas Jefferson called a “foreign power”.
If the government starts oppressing its’ people, it takes the press to tell them that them are being oppressed. Their job is really to keep that from happening in the first place.
The right to bare arms means, and I know that this is not practical today, that citizens should be armed well enough to meet a federal army.
Jeez, I hope they do not burn my house down around me…wait Janet is gone…. Whew.
I will step down now.
PC
-
"The right to bare arms means, and I know that this is not practical today, that citizens should be armed well enough to meet a federal army"
Or any army for that matter.
-
Tac, you miss the point.. It is the LAW dude,do you have any respect for our constitution at all?
-
Hey I'm not some sociopathic nutter - but there are people who are, and are insulted by the slightest thing.
I've seen 'The Shootist', it's a good film. But the only quote I can remember from any JW film is "Get off your horse and drink your milk." (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
The right to bare arms means, and I know that this is not practical today, that citizens should be armed well enough to meet a federal army.
No kidding. The government has much bigger guns.
Now... if the founding fathers truly meant that we should have an armed populace as one more piece of the checks and balances and that this armed populace would be expected to oppose the government if necessary, we need armor, field artillery, jet fighters, high explosives, etc.
[This message has been edited by Sandman_SBM (edited 03-25-2001).]
-
psssst. The English aren't coming. They cancelled that whole invasion thing a while back.
Lephturn
-
Yes, it is a law passed in a time when the nation literally depended on militia as its only armed forces. I respect your constitution very much, I just dislike people that hide behind it and abuse it. Like Lepth said, the brits aint invading anymore, you are the only superpower... the reason why that law was passed is so outdated its outright irrelevant today.
-
Nope, Tac, you miss the point.
The reason why that law was written was to ensure that the OTHER laws remain in effect.
It's as true now as it was then.
But this is a circular argument that has been made many times in other threads.
Dowding,
"but there are people who are, and are insulted by the slightest thing."
I'm sure there are. However, these examples would NOT be following JW's code. A guy steps on your foot (from your previous example) and apologizes, no problemo. A guy steps on your foot, stomps on it again and then says "What are ya going to do about it?", that's different.
People who get all cross-eyed over nothing are just looking for trouble.
The key is in the second part. It's simple respect for others. "I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
Minding your own business, respecting other folks as they mind theirs.
"R-E-S-P-E-C-T! Find out what it means to me!" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Real, real simple.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
"The reason why that law was written was to ensure that the OTHER laws remain in effect."
Really? How? Giving arms to civilians ensure other laws remain in effect? That logic escapes me.
-
I...Now..But...
<ponders>
<shuts up>
<walks away>
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"You filthy piece of distended rectum! DIE allierte schweinhund!"
-
Uhhh... as far a an armed population being useless as far as resistance to the government should it go sour... it is VERY feasible. Guerrilla Warfare is something that an underarmed but determined population can easily pull off. The common household holds quite a few items alone that can make various items of destruction. Guerrilla warfare in America would make Vietnam look tame...
Giving up guns is a damn simple seeming solution isn't it? I mean we give up that 2nd amendment and we'll sleep better while the big man watches over us. They'll protect us, watch us and tell us what to eat and drink so as we don't get hurt. Yep... they got it all planed out.
Freedom isn't easy... its fraught with perils to be sure. You don't give away freedom though for security... its a lot damn harder to get it back after its gone than to hold on to it. If your solution is to hand it away then perhaps you'd better take a long hard look at what makes you tick.
There's this place up in D.C. full of Soldiers, Sailors and AIrmen whom paid the ultimate price for freedom... and now some of you sorry tulips want to just hand it over... "we cant handle it sir, here you have it back...". Its pretty damn sad.
batdog
[This message has been edited by batdog (edited 03-26-2001).]
-
No, Toad - I'm saying you step on someone's foot, and they see it as a slight. They give you a good kicking. An extreme example, to be sure, but to that nutter you ARE insulting him.
Having respect for other people? Even communist anti-american brit scum can see that's a good thing. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)