Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: leonid on September 18, 2000, 11:11:00 AM
-
There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. - 65 million of which are handguns. Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.
There were a total of 32,436 people killed by guns in the United States in 1997. Of these:- 17,566 (54%) were gun suicides
- 12,942 (40%) were gun homicides
- 981 (3%) were unintentional or "accidental" shootings
- More than 11 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns every day.
- In Washington State, during 1989-1998 there were 5,950 firearm deaths. 70% of these (4,125) were suicides committed with firearms.
- In 1997, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for Black men ages 15-34, and for both Black men and women ages 15-24.
- The United States has the highest firearm death and suicide rates of all other industrialized countries.
The Risks Of Guns In the Home- Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.
- The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.
- The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
- In 1994, 35% of the homes with children younger than 18 reported having at least one firearm; 43% of those had at least one unlocked firearm. 21% of firearm owners keep at least one gun loaded and unlocked in the home.
- When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than 2% of home invasion crimes.
Kids and Guns- In 1997, 2,580 children and teenagers were murdered with guns, 1,262 committed suicide with guns, and 306 died in unintentional shootings. A total of 4,223 kids were killed by firearms.
- The rate of firearm death of children 0 to 14 years old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
- From 1984-1994, the firearm homicide death rate for 15-19 years olds increased 222%, while the non-firearm homicide death rate decreased 12.8%.
- In 1995, 1 in 12 (8.3%) high school students reported having carried a gun for fighting or self-defense at least once in the last 30 days.
- For Black teenagers 15-19, firearm homicides increased 158% from 1985 to 1993.
Firearms and Youth Suicide- Between 1980 and 1994, the suicide rate for teenagers 15-19 increased by 29%; the increase in firearm-related suicides accounted for virtually all (96%) of the increase in the overall suicide rate.
- For children under 15 years of age, the suicide rate in the U.S. is two times higher than that of 25 other industrialized countries combined - largely because the firearm-related suicide rate in the U.S. is 11 times that of the other industrialized nations.
- At the national level, emergency room data verify that suicide attempts with firearms are almost always fatal: for every gun suicide there is less than one nonfatal injury. In Oregon alone, during 1988-1993 78.2% of suicide attempts with firearms were fatal. Only 0.4% of suicide attempts by drug overdose were fatal.
- Firearms have become the predominant method of suicide for Blacks aged 10-19, accounting for over 66% of suicides.
- In King County, Washington, more than 75% of the guns used by children in suicide attempts and unintentional shootings were stored in the home of the victim, a relative, or a friend.
Economic Costs of Gun Violence- Direct medical costs for firearm injuries was $4 billion in 1997. Additional indirect costs, such as lost potential earnings, were estimated at $19 billion.
- In 1992, the estimated cost in pain, suffering, lost quality of life, and loss of productivity resulting from gunshot injury was $113 billion.
- In 1994, the mean direct medical cost per gunshot injury was approximately $17,000, much of which was paid by U.S. taxpayers.
- In 1991, the average cost to treat each child wounded by gunfire was enough to pay for a full year's tuition at many colleges.
- At least 80% of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayer dollars.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Hmm, you want me to post the dangers of swimming pools? They caused 10 times the fatalities that handguns did...
-
but man... a gun is addiction, it increases the lenght of your d***, you possibly can't rid such thing!
I'd like to see the day when USA finally has get rid of unnecessary handguns. (and we know that then USA would be alot safer also)
Ripsnort, but swimming pools less likely pops in front of you asking for your moneys... (with somewhat undenyable handgun assist)
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
I'd like to see the day when USA finally has get rid of unnecessary handguns. (and we know that then USA would be alot safer also)
You see, we have this Constitution thing. Pretty inconvenient to some...
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
Ripsnort, but swimming pools less likely pops in front of you asking for your moneys... (with somewhat undenyable handgun assist)
Right, but the gun, as in the swimming pool, can be abused, guns in the wrong hands kill, swimming pools with the wrong reckless owners kill...in other words, fix society before you fix the object.
-
Ripsnort - that is a senseless comparison. Since when was a swimming pool designed to kill or maim?
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Ripsnort - that is a senseless comparison. Since when was a swimming pool designed to kill or maim?
Hmm, not sure what you would use a handgun for, but I use them for target practice, and hunting. Target shooting is a fun sport, very competitive, I used to go shooting with 4 or 5 cops that very very proficient in hitting targets, and have the trophies to prove it on their mantles at home.
Its the ignorant SOB's that make the responsible gun owner look bad.
Are you saying there are no responsible gun owners? Well then I say there are no responsible swimming pool owners, and we should ban them all! (Tongue in cheek)
Keep in mind, if you intend to kill someone, you'll find a way, whether its a gun, a knife, a car, like I said, fix society first, it starts with the family, and family values.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Sidenote:
I'm all for stricter gun controls , right AFTER they start enforcing the current ones out there, and making sentences longer for those that commit crimes with guns. Did you know the average sentence served for Murder 1 in the USA is 7 years? Like I said, fix society first.
-
I was refering to the guns owned for self-defence and the accidents that arise from this.
Its an indisputable truth that the gun was designed to kill, regardless of what it's eventual use has become. The gun wasn't invented for target practise, but to kill more efficiently than a bow or the sword.
And as for hunting - wouldn't a rifle be a better choice than a semi-automatic pistol? What can you hunt effectively with a pistol, given its range?
In reply to the irresponsible pool/gun owners - sure these people exist. But how many kids can swim versus how many kids can safely handle a firearm? If you take the average kid and put him unsupervised with a gun or around a pool - which is the more likely to survive?
BTW - interesting info. Leonid.
-
Pistol: Target shooting.
Rifle/Shotguns:For hunting.
Kids shouldn't be allowed to handle guns unsupervised. I wasn't. Had to have Daddy around. Kids shouldn't be allowed to swim alone without supervision either. My point is this: When was the last time a gun jumped up off a desk and shot someone by itself? It takes an act of a human being to either be stupid enough to leave one out for a kid to get ahold of , or someone purposely using that weapon in an unlawful way.
You can drown someone in a swimming pool by holding his head down, so, better make them illegal, since humans cannot be trusted!
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Got this off of AGW off-topic forum, read the first URL, then read the last one.
http://www.frenchu.com/tpg/drill.html (http://www.frenchu.com/tpg/drill.html)
http://www.frenchu.com/tpg/drill_last.html (http://www.frenchu.com/tpg/drill_last.html)
-
This type of post is nothing more than a blatant attempt to force an opinion or a lifestyle on other people. Leonid, no one FORCES you to have a gun. No one FORCES you to work in a job not of your choosing. No one Forces you to be a vegetarian (at lweast so far). No one FORCES you to drive a car not of your choosing. No one FORCES you to live in certain areas or to move from your home without compensation. These are freedoms you enjoy. Yet you feel the "right" ti tell others how to live their lives. Excuse me, but who died and made YOU God?
The tenets of freedonm involve the ability to hold opinions and even lifestyles that other people may not like. To force others to conform your CHOSEN lifestyle is not freedom, it's tyrany. Whether you use force or make a "law" to make your lifestyle mandatory it is still an abrogation of freedom. How many other mandatory changes will you mandate before YOU are happy? Are you going to ban SUV's? Are you going ban private aircraft? Are you going to ban ANY vehicle that is capable of speeds over 75 MPH? Are you going to mandate only electric vehicles? Take out the internet and eliminate browsers since pedophiles use it to look for kids and terrorist wanna be's use it to learn how to make explosive devices? (I can do more harm with diesel fuel and fertilizer than ANY firearm capable of being fired by a single person)Are all these things going to have to be eliminated? After all no one really NEEDS these things do they. Everyone of them has the potential to be misused and cause REAL harm.
I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you decide to live YOUR life the way YOU want and leave others who do NOT misuse tools / vehicles / firearms / knives / swords to live the way THEY want.
I have lived all my life with firearms. I carried one for work on a daily basis for almost all of my adult life. I have never misused the weapon. Yet YOU feel that you have the right to tell ME what to do and how to live. I dealt with REAL people who meant to do harm to others with a great variety of weapons. Frankly they didn't worry me as much as you do. Most of them were interested in trying to steal your money or belongings. YOU are interested in stealing freedom because YOU think YOU know better how to tell others how to live THEIR lives.
Well, the first amendment to the constitution (actually known as the Bill of RIGHTS) guarantees you the right to have and speak an opinion. It does NOT grant you the right to force it on another. The second ammendment guarantees ME the right to have firearms and has not a single word about "hunting" weapons in it. Please note that governments are not in the rights "giving" business. Governments only take or reduce rights. Our (US) government is based on the ability to govern with the CONSENT of the governed.
The current "BAD" buzzword in the anti gun clique is "sniper rifles". It's odd that hunting rifles are supposedly still acceptable but a "sniper rifle" is not. This is particularly evident in the "politically correct" speach used by anti gunners. It should be noted that the current sniper rifles used by the US armed forces are hunting rifles with a different scope on them (Winchester model 70's and Remington model 700's). I guess that means then, hunting rifles are by definition "sniper rifles" and are "bad".
If you do not want a firearm, don't have one. If you don't like SUV's, abortions, super fast cars, luxury cars, private airplanes etc. don't get one. Just don't think to tell others they can't have one as long as they have done nothing wrong.
Last note. In my home town of a half million permanent population there are on average 10,000 auto collisions. Most have some type of injury associated. There are more people killed on the roads in the city limits than are killed in homicides of all types. Almost all involve licensed drivers operating a deadly weapon that contains more force and power than ANY portable firearm in existance. Perhaps we should ban private tansportation. There is NO constitutional guarantee of a right to drive.
Mav
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
[BIts the ignorant SOB's that make the responsible gun owner look bad.
[/B]
HEY! Watch it! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Frightening how some people could actually believe that some sort of eutopia would be achieve if only we'd get rid of hand guns and/or all guns. If you outlaw guns, criminals will still be around, some still with guns, people will still kill themselves (especially if they have to live in Seattle), and there will still be accidents, except for some of the 981 in the stats above.
I currently own a Beretta 92FS handgun. It sits in the case, in my closet, with no ammo in the house, waiting for the day that I learn how to use it properly. Most likely in the next couple of months.
SOB
-
Rip,
Firearms were a military technological breakthrough. Pools weren't. Firearms were invented to, first and foremost, kill things, mostly people (military technological breakthrough). Pools were meant to swim in for recreation.
People can die doing just about anything, including nothing at all. That's not the point here. The point is a pistol/rifle is by definition a weapon, in other words, meant to harm/kill people. If you want to plink at things in the forest with a firearm, fine, but never delude yourself with what you have in your hands - a very efficient lethal weapon.
-
Wow Mav, this thread really woke you up! hehe.
BTW, if anyone should be against handguns, its me...I've had a .22 caliber rifle shot at me, a shot gun held towards me as another fellow beat the crap out of me (they wouldn't have been successful without the gun)an Ought-6 pulled on me, and a .32 cal pistol shot at my face (I was sober, he was drunk, I got lucky)...but yet, in all cases, the PERSON, not the firearm, was the reason for the violence. I've confirmed that 3 out of the 4 are now in prison years later, the lone exception was the .22 cal. rifle, which a neighbor kid raided his dads NON-LOCKED weapons closet and fired it randomly at me as I rode my bike past his house (he was angry at me). He, ironically, is a lumberjack somewhere in Snohomish county, Washington. The bullet hit the frame of my bike, good thing he had iron sites!
I'm all for modifying behaviorial patterns in humans. Alot of people need help, and alot of folks will not respond to the tell tale signs of someone that needs professional help.
Edit: Forgot I had another guy 'flash' his gun at me in a restaurant where I bartended, I caught him off (from drinking) and he became angry. I heard years later he died in a boating accident, drunk, he drowned.
Lenoid, point of my post is the people, not the guns, that MAKE guns dangerous,not the other way around. By arguing my "swimming pool" theory is as rediculous as an anti-gun person arguing their point for gun control.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-18-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Mav,
I believe firearms are the exception. And, yes, that is my opinion. Fill another multiparagraph post, it won't change my opinion.
SOB,
The only thing I find frightening is that so many American males go against the grain of logic, a logic that the rest of the world appears to understand perfectly. A sad case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
-
Why not ban knives, because they're a weapon designed originally to kill people (regardless of what they're used for now)?
A gun is no more dangerous than a knife, or a crossbow.
My former neighbor had a crossbow. He didn't bother to keep it locked up, and one day his kids got a hold of it. One shot several bolts at the other before I stopped them.
Stupid people and criminals are the danger to society, not inanimate objects. A baseball bat can be (and often is) a deadly weapon--or it is a sporting tool.
Guns are a scapegoat, nothing more. Once guns get banned, the whiners will find something else to blame.
Do tell--what do people in the UK blame for crime, since they have baned guns?
J_A_B
-
The only thing I find frightening is that so many American males go against the grain of logic, a logic that the rest of the world appears to understand perfectly
[/b]
And what logic would that be?
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Originally posted by leonid:
Rip,
Firearms were a military technological breakthrough. Pools weren't. Firearms were invented to, first and foremost, kill things, mostly people (military technological breakthrough). Pools were meant to swim in for recreation.
Actualy to split hairs here, I would consider a moat a pool (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Weren't they military "tools"?
Udie goes into ramble mode...
I wonder if the anti-gun people are going to be willing to use guns to get rid of guns. That's what it's going to take. Anytime there is a persived threat to the 2nd amendment gun sales go through the roof, can you explain this?
In school they teach about sex, and how to have safe sex. They justify taking this duty/honor from the parents of the kids by saying "they'll just learn about it anyway on the streets, better for them to learn it here". Hmmmmmmmm Where would you want somebody learning about a firearm? In school? or on the street?
Oh yeah, I could kill somebody with a tooth pick, should we ban em? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Udie
-
Just out of curiosity Leonid, do you know the estimated number of times a gun is used in self defense? Between 180,000 & 2.5 million times a year (numbers depend on who you listen to. Gun control proponents or opponents, respectively).
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Ripsnort - that is a senseless comparison. Since when was a swimming pool designed to kill or maim?
LOL...give a Personal Injury Lawyer some time and he'll be able to give you the exact date!
Cobra
-
I don't own gun. I think you should be able to if you want. THe gun is not the problem, the person with it in his/her hand is. Ban alcohol before you ban guns :0 >75% of crimes are committed while intoxicated.
What I don't understand is why people outside our country try to tell us how to run it? I don't give a crap bout UK, Finland, wherever. And I don't care what they think of the greatest country in the world, flaws and all. MAybe they jealous (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
The real difference between a swimming pool and a gun is that a swimming pool is volentary. If your neighbor buy's a pool he can't make you swim in it. If your neighbor buy's a car he can't make you drive in it. If your neighbor buy's a roast beef he can't make you eat it(In response to the vegitarian question previously stated).
But if your neighbor buy's a gun you and your family are F*@#!! as soon as he/she gets drunk and decides to use it.
BTW, Charton Heston recently admitted to having an alcohol problem. Don't you feel safer now? I feel safe.
Later
F4UDOA
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
The real difference between a swimming pool and a gun is that a swimming pool is volentary. If your neighbor buy's a pool he can't make you swim in it. If your neighbor buy's a car he can't make you drive in it. If your neighbor buy's a roast beef he can't make you eat it(In response to the vegitarian question previously stated).
But if your neighbor buy's a gun you and your family are F*@#!! as soon as he/she gets drunk and decides to use it.
BTW, Charton Heston recently admitted to having an alcohol problem. Don't you feel safer now? I feel safe.
Later
F4UDOA
What's to stop that neighbor from getting drunk, grabbing you, throwing you in the pool and drowning you by force? I'm not a very strong person physicaly, a gun would stop him from doing that to me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW, Chuck Heston said he had a problem because he was drinking alot more due to the fact that he was going to a lot of social functions and speaches for the N.R.A. I believe he went to an AA program and has since quit drinking. Why not finish the story if your going to talk about it, instead of making it look like he's still drinking. Pretty honorable of him to admit to it if you ask me.
Chuck Heston has to be the COOLEST actor that ever existed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) When I grow up I want to look like he did in the movie Midway, standing on the bridge with those aviator shades on (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Udie
-
LOL Cobra - scary thing is you're probably right!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ripsnort, the point I was trying to make was to compare the potential lethality of a swimming pool compared to a firearm, from the view point of an unsupervised child. Like yourself, I believe a child should never be left unsupervised with either.
The thing that has always disturbed me is how easily you can conceal a handgun; makes ideal for crime at any level.
Anyway, I don't think guns should be illegal - but they should only be kept in registered shooting clubs. That way their ownership and use can be more effectively controlled; you couldn't shoot under the influence for example. Surely no-one could be against that?
Eagler - if we can't take objective criticism (at least from the viewpoint of location) on a subject, then perhaps something they say strikes a chord. No-one is seriously trying to tell you how to run your country, just how it looks from the outside.
Instructing people in how to run their country has been an active policy of the US (and Britain) for many years, by the way.
Udie - you got to admit how easy it is to kill someone with a gun - the sad thing is a child could do it. The thing that has always disturbed me is how easily you can conceal a handgun; makes ideal for crime at any level.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with sports or hunting. It affirms an absolute and unconditional right to own and bear arms.
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
But if your neighbor buy's a gun you and your family are F*@#!! as soon as he/she gets drunk and decides to use it.
Later
F4UDOA
Same holds true if your neighbor gets drunk and decides to use his car, but too a even greater extent.
Growing up in the Midwest, my family and neighbors did own guns. None of us were ever harmed by guns. My Aunt and Cousin however were both critically injured and maimed for life by a drunk driver.
From my personal experience and perspective the Drunk Driver is the larger threat.
Now, do you ban cars, alcohol or both? Or just enforce the laws that are already on the books?
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Udie - you got to admit how easy it is to kill someone with a gun - the sad thing is a child could do it. The thing that has always disturbed me is how easily you can conceal a handgun; makes ideal for crime at any level./B]
How fragile is life? I've heard of people being shot point blank in the head and have a full recovery. Others have been shot in the leg and bled to death. When it's your time it's your time, and there isn't anything that anybody on Earth can do about it. If the person is willing to kill somebody with a gun they will be ABLE (there's a pun (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) to kill period.
This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to a civil war. Which realy worries me. I'm sure there are poloticians in DC right now that would just love that to happen too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) that way big brother could come in and make us behave he way he/it wants us too, since we were obviously so incapable of taking care of ourselves.
The fact that the 2nd amendment is so high on the list goes to show how important a right it is. It backs up the 1st amendment (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Udie
-
Maverick,
It's dolts like you that give the gun-owners a bad name. I am as pro-gun as they come but I would not want you to have one, based on the stupidity of your post.
In his post Leonid did not put a single word of his own, just the statistical data, so he did not attempt to force any opinion. Or did he hold you at a gun point making you read his post? How else could he force anyone
Your post is the one telling him not to post certain things (ones you don't like) and you use teh 1st amendment to justify it...
You have no right to tell anyone what they can or cannot post.
Anti-gun guys:
Yes, the guns were designed as weapons. All the history of humans is history of violence. Ancient and medieval pesants could not protect themselves and had to become surfs of some lord who could protect them. The lords fullfiled that obligation when they felt like it and to the extent of their abilities.
You suggest that we should become serfs of some goverment bureaucrats and entrust our safety to the goverment? The goverment does not have a good record of preventing crimes.
I can guarantee that a gun is with me when I need it, but nobody can guarantee that a cop will be there to protect me.
Whatif the goverment itself is a bad guy? Would the British government have left colonies alone if they asked politely jnstead of starting a revolutionary war? I doubt it very much.
I am sure that if the government was successfull in taking the guns out of hands of criminals, most citizens would not bother to obtain the guns and the problem would go away by itself.
As it stands, prohibiting guns woudl take them away from lawfull citizens and leave only criminals armed.
Suicides - that is not a society problem no matter what tool was used.
miko
Upon reading my post in the morning I came to regret my choice of words.
See my post below with an appology to Maveric.
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Miko2d - you are talking about a British government that existed 300 years ago. Britain and the world has moved on. We have given independance to many countries this century if there was enough support for it. Britain acted the way it did back then because that was the way things were done. This in no way justifies it, but goes some way to explain it.
I don't know the law in America or the everyday situation; is a criminal more severely punished for using a firearm against an unarmed person versus an armed one? Can the average american EXPECT to be shot at any time or assaulted using a firearm? Is it that bad over there? Cheers.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
http://www.combatsim.com/ubb/Forum35/HTML/000407.html (http://www.combatsim.com/ubb/Forum35/HTML/000407.html)
-
There's a problem with saying that banning/restricting firearms only takes them away from lawful citizens, and leaves them with the criminal element. This happens everywhere firearms are restricted: most countries in Europe, Canada, etc (a good example of this is the Mafia in Italia). The deaths in these countries related to gunshot wounds come nowhere near ours.
Sadly, I'm almost certain another civil war would result in America if firearms were restricted/banned here. Amazing that so many males would revolt over this, especially when so many other nations do fine without them.
Time will tell, just how many Americans want them gone vs. those who are determined to keep them. And yes, it's a constitutional issue, but no constitution is writ in stone. Just look at history.
-
It's true what u say about constitutions, Leonid. Britain doesn't even have a written constitution and we get along alright most of the time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Hmm, you want me to post the dangers of swimming pools? They caused 10 times the fatalities that handguns did...
Ripsnort,
Could you post the source of that info please. I have seen many, many pro-gun people use that statement and have never seen any data to back it up. As far as I can tell it might just be an urban legend that is perpetuated by the pro-gun people because of its conveinence.
Don't take this wrong, I'm not anti-gun, I'm just curious and would like to see the actual numbers for pool deaths, backed up by a legitimate source.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Oh man, I just saw a terrible vision of the future.
Firearms are finally heavily restricted by the Federal government, which results is a furor by a fair portion of the male populace. Soon militias begin forming up nationwide, holding caches of the now-restricted firearms, in defiance of the federal government. The National Guard is called in to seek out these caches and confiscate the weapons. Surprisingly, first one one, then another NG unit make bogus searches, finally erupting in outright insubordination of their CinC. The Army is called in to bring order, but it is divided on the issue, resulting in outbreaks of clashes between elements of either side. Finally, all hell breaks loose, and after months of intense, no-quarter fighting the pro-gun elements of the military (which comprise at least 80% of the entire armed forces of the USA) eliminate the last elements of the loyalist forces. In an unprecedented act the Commander of the pro-gun forces, asks for the resignation of the present president, so that he may be put on trial for treason. Meanwhile, political supporters of the gun control law, nationwide, are collected to answer for their involvement in this federal act of 'treason' (though a few escape and flee the country). A new president is put in place by the military forces, a former presiding officer of the NRA. The first legislation passed is that all citizens must own a registered firearm in order to vote, resulting in a sizable amount of the population that cannot vote.
-
NATO nuclear policy in wartime against the "Red Menace":
"First we will use conventional weapons until we start losing, then we will use Tactical Nuclear Weapons until we keep on losing, then we will blow up the world"
This was said by a former NATO chief, so you can bet your butt it was true. THAT is a scary... and it was real.
That vision leonid is hilarious in my point of view. You will never get congress to agree on that nor the armed forces.
But always beware the NRA.. Nationalist Rednecks of America. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) *G*
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
but man... a gun is addiction, it increases the lenght of your d***, you possibly can't rid such thing!
So you don't have a gun then? And your d*** is short?
Is THAT why you aren't man enough to fly in the arena under your posting handle?
-
Leonid,
So what do you suggest as the answer.
You have brought the statistics before the group, obviously to point out what you perceive to be a problem.
Will you now state your proposed solution?
I'd also like to see the reference for your statistics. Is there a website for that?
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
BTW, Charton Heston recently admitted to having an alcohol problem. Don't you feel safer now? I feel safe. F4UDOA
You're not going to go off on us again are ya? No more spit-flying, foaming at the mouth diatribes? Just a discussion? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Teddy Kennedy is a major pro gun control advocate. What does his drinking have to do with his position?
I can’t count how many times he’s been dried out, only to soak himself in booze once again.
Maybe he drinks to forget drowning Mary Jo when he accidentally drove his car off a bridge...while DUI.
Damn, killed her with a car; I bet her parents are glad it wasn’t a gun!
But what does that have to do with his position? His bodyguards are armed; does he deserve that right more than a average citizen?
Are you really going to argue that a recovering alcoholic (and they are all always "recovering"...ask one) is in some way incapable of reason or making a valid argument? If so, then after Heston, I suggest we start removing everyone of this type from the Congress!
Let’s start with Ted!
BTW, I don't feel any "safer" with Ted in the Senate. He's a typical liberal..."A man cannot be evil...it's either the environment or some inanimate object that MADE him become a menace to society. So we can't punish the man."
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
Yes this is all a constitutional problem.
But to understand why, we need to look at why the 2nd amendment was ever added.
Okay then. After the revolution, the founding fathers of the US decided to ENSURE to the people that they would have some means to remove the government, if it ever neglected to serve the people. That's what is there for. Nothing much other then that.
For that reason, pro-gun people get really really nervous when politicians try to mess with the right that would let them remove a government (i.e. the militia groups banding togather)
anti-gun people point to other countries that have had guns rights removed and it hasn't led to totalitarianism or anarchy.
But after living with the idealology of the common man has the ability to act should his government betray him, for over 200 years, this will not go away anytime soon. We use to take pride in the fact we controlled how the government acted, not the other way around (albeit as long as that citizen conducts himself under the authority the people give the government). That's the other idealology. The 18th amendment was the first major attempt to try and remove a freedom from the people of the US. It was a noble concept and could it of been enforced would of saved many a life in the present day. But think of all public servants died trying to serve it in the open shoot outs...
I am afraid the same thing would happen if any MAJOR changes were made to the constitution again...it's all well in theory but, under common interpretation of the second amendment the people who go out to enforce such laws are subject to be shot at by people defending their right against government hostilities.
It's a big stink. I really don't have to many problems with limits imposed on hand guns, but allowing one to pass would make it easier for even stricter laws to be passed.
I have a varying collection of rifles and some black powder pistols, along with antique revolvers and a Colt .45 pistol. Alot of those guns have been passed down through the family. The rest are for hunting.
Being from a rural area where I sometimes actually did hunt for food and not for sport, that is, hunting for sustinance (My gawd! They still do that in America!?) guns have always been a part of my life. They only time I every used to use the Colt .45 was during froggin on rivers and such, Water Moccasons would be everywhere and it was either shoot them or get bitten, ain't fun. I once used it to save myself from a rather pissed off bob cat that slashed my face.
So what are we to do when it comes to hand guns?
Some people do have a legitimate reason for having them.
But I think the answer is very simple. Take them up, give everyone black powder pistols and load them with rock salt. If kids happen to get into them they'll remember the sting. Robbers will too. Docter's business will boom for helping minor skin abrasions.
People are stupid. It will never change. It's just ashame that stupid people end up ruining the life of those who aren't. But then again who isn't stupid? Self defense is an odd reason...but it buys a person peace of mind. And that too is covered by the constitution. Pursuit of happiness and all.
- Jig
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Ripsnort - that is a senseless comparison. Since when was a swimming pool designed to kill or maim?
So does this mean that only the original design intent should be used to decide whether ANY object can be owned by the general public?
Is this your standard?
-
I'm confused by the rhetoric above about having a right to own a firearm and the definitions used. A firearm is designed to kill things but can be used of other purposes, (ie. target shooting which I enjoy). Pools and cars as mentioned above are for swimming in or trantporting people which sometimes happen to kill people as well. Comparing the two is a poor attempt at distracting from the original point put forward that there needs to be better gun control in the United States of America.
I live in a country with strict gun control laws but a high ratio of firearms per capita. New Zealand has a population of a bit over 3.1 million people with about 800,000 registered owners, (most having more than one weapon). I can't confirm it but we apparently have the highest ratio of firearms per captia in the world, (almost 1:1).
Restrictions on Category D firearms, (Pistols), are very tight. Military style weapons, (ie. semi-automatic, pistol grip with a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds), have a restriction on storage, (must have a safe bolted to the floor and wall), and you need two other category E lisence holders to vouch for you on application as well as a non-family referee. The other categories are for hunting rifles or collectors.
The police force here is armed but not visibly, (ie. they don't walk about with pistols on their hips but some officers have concealed weapons and some police cars have a shotgun, rifle and pistol in the gunsafe in the boot of the car). There are also specialist Police Armed Offender squads who deal strictly with firearms related situations.
New Zealand isn't a utopia as there were 6 more murders than last year bringing the total to 104, (most were not firearms related).
I understood that in the US the right to bear arms was so that the individual states could mount militias for the defence of their state or the defence of the country, (but not be used to attack another country). This comes from a basic lack of trust in the federal government and to stop the president becoming a dictator, (this is oversimplified to make the point more obvious). I can understand the principle, (freedom liberty and justice for all has to be defended) and regretfully sometimes this involves violence,
however...
the US population is about 250 million, (83 times the size of New Zealand). Even if every single murder in NZ was committed with a firearm, then the US still has a murder rate involving firearms over 3 times that of New Zealand, (in reality it's 10 times greater).
That's a hell of a price to pay for not trusting your govenment, your local law enforcers and your neighbours. Maybe I'm being to much of an idealist but until the citizens of the United States of America really want to change the firearms laws, then they will have to live with the consequences of their choises. 32,000 lives a year is the size of large town each year, every year.
There is no "right answer" to the problem they face because even one firearms related death is one too many. Short of banning firearms all together, I think the system in New Zealand is about as good as you can get but we had a better start than US.
[disclaimer. I've held a Firearms Lisence since I was 15, (over half my life now). Served 8 years in the Territorial Army in New Zealand and am a qualified Shooting Coach on Rifle, Pistol and Light Support Weapons, (ie. machine guns). I don't know a lot about the American Constitution apart from what I learned in school or read on this board]
Spotcha in the Air,
-
Toad,
I really don't know myself. I see a problem, but firearms is not only ingrained in the American culture, it is represented, more or less, by the 2nd amendment. Right now, ownership is so huge and so entrenched that any true federal action to restrict ownership could have explosive consequences. To be honest, I'm not sure I'm ready for that. I don't know if anyone is. One side sees it as a threat to a basic American right. The other side sees it as the catalyst to the greatest level of violence in the industrialized world. I wish we could find some common ground. I really do.
The sources are:
Police Foundation © 1996, Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use, p. 13.
National Opinion Research Center, The University of Chicago, 1997-1998 National Gun Policy Survey, September 1998.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Unpublished Data from the National Vital Statistics System, 1997.
Calculated by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence using Unpublished Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 1998.
Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics, 1999.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47, No. 19, June 30, 1999.
United Nations, 1997.
Kellermann AL, "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home", J, Trauma 1998; 45(2):263-67.
Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et. al., "Gun Ownership As A Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.
Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et. al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership", N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.
Schuster MA, "Firearm Storage Patterns in US Homes With Children", American Journal of Public Health, 2000;90(4):588-94.
Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 1999.
Kellermann AL, "Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes",JAMA 1995;273(22):1759-62.
Kellermann AL., "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home", J, Trauma 1998;45(2):263-67.
Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 1999.
"Firearm-Related death in 26 Industrialized Countries", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997, 46(5):101-105.
Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.
Kann L, Warren CW, Harris WA, et. al., "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 1993", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1995;44:1-56.
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1998.
National Summary of Injury Mortality Data, 1987-1994, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November, 1996.
Miller M, Hemenway D, "The Relationship Between Firearms and Suicide: A Review of the Literature", Aggression and violent Behavior, 1999, Vol.4, No.1.
Annest JL, "National Estimates of Nonfatal Firearm-related Injuries. Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg", Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, Vol.273, No.22.
MMWR Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April 28, 1995. 44(16);312-315,321-323.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.
Grossman DC, "Self-inflicted and Unintentional Firearm Injuries Among Children and Adolescents", Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, August 1999, Vol.153.
Ginsburg, JA, et. al., American College of Physicians, "Firearm Injury Prevention", Annals of Internal Medicine, 1998, 128:3, 237.
Millert TR and Cohen MA "Costs of Penetrating Injury", Textbook of Penetrating Trauma, 1995. Ivatury and Cayten, eds. Philadelphia: Lee and Civiga.
American Academy of Pediatrics, "Firearm-related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population", Pediatrics 2000;105(4):888-89.
"Financial Impact of Inpatient Resources in Children's Hospitals Caused by Firearm Injuries: CY 1991", National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, 1993.
Rice M, "Shooting in the Dark: Estimationg the Cost of Firearm Injuries", Health Affairs, 1993, 12(4):171-185.
-
I think its a dangerous slippery slope to start removing ammendments to the Constitution.
Which one would be next? Its not hyperbole, its a serious concern. Get enough people together and lets get rid of a couple more.
A Democracy is not perfect. No from of government yet tried on this planet is perfect. But one thing a Democracy does is protect the minorities rights from the majority. If the majority today decides it doesn't like a Constitutional Ammendment and revokes it, then the precedent is set for whatever majority exists tomorrow to remove another Right asserted to us by the Constitution (and don't give me any of that Prohibition Ammendment stuff, that was idiotic to add as an Ammendment in the first place).......
Actually this is a good example of messing w/the Constitution. An Ammendment against Alcohol was added to the Constitution. What was the result? Well besides making Joseph Kennedy very rich, it made criminals out of ordinary citizens. Did it stop drinking...not even close. It did make the ordinary population federal law breakers. Ofcourse, it also had a very positive affect on a few Gangsters bank accounts.
The point is, the Constitution has withstood the test of over 200 years (not alot, I know by European Standards, but darn good). Why is this the case? I believe its because it has been respected enough not to alter it to fit the current trends, political correctness, or times. Also, it is a simple, basic document which was crafted to insure our rights. And the great thing is, it can be applied today. At the time of its writing, not all of our citizens enjoyed these rights, but we eventually caught up to the foresight of the Constitution and its framers. So we still are growing into the principles in the Constitution, so to speak.
While the document itself is static, the principles and basic tenants are not! That is why it is very risky, in my mind, to alter what the original framers put forth. I don't mean we can't add rights (women's right to vote is a perfect example) to the Constitution, but we should never revoke any of those rights already put forth.
Cobra
(paid attention during History and Social Studies Classes)
Post Script
As far as Britian and the colonies go.....The original pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock were fleaing religious prosecution. But after that, it was good ole capitalism which drove the major events. The colonists didn't like being taxed without their representation. They also didn't like their money going back to Britian without their say, is the bottomline.
-
Originally posted by leonid:
...any true federal action to restrict ownership could have explosive consequences. To be honest, I'm not sure I'm ready for that
Well, specifically then, if you could pick your ideal solution irrespective of possible consequences, what would it be?
What I am driving at is a person either feels there is a place for firearms in American society or that there can be no place for firearms in American society.
Which side of that are you on?
You undoubtedly read the previous threads that dealt with this topic in the O-Club.
Obviously, I feel there IS a place for firearms. I also believe there is room to improve the situation.
However, I am also fully aware that no laws, restrictions, compromises, databases, federal forms or whatever to date have ever been enough to satisfy those who want all guns removed from the hands of private citizens.
This DESPITE the fact that the present laws, restrictions, etc. have NEVER been fully enforced nor have perpetrators of violent crime with guns been dealt with to the full extent of the law. (Except perhaps recently in Richmond, Va. where gun violence has fallen dramatically.)
When the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and use firearms in appropriate ways are PERMANENTLY AFFIRMED, it will be quite easy reach a compromise.
(I also FULLY support incredibly heavy penalties against those that use guns improperly.)
However, the gun control forces, IMHO, have justifiably earned the total distrust of the law-abiding gun owning citizenry.
There, from MY point of view, lies the problem. The "antis" will never stop and have proven it repeatedly.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
The real difference between a swimming pool and a gun is that a swimming pool is volentary. If your neighbor buy's a pool he can't make you swim in it. If your neighbor buy's a car he can't make you drive in it. If your neighbor buy's a roast beef he can't make you eat it(In response to the vegitarian question previously stated).
But if your neighbor buy's a gun you and your family are F*@#!! as soon as he/she gets drunk and decides to use it.
BTW, Charton Heston recently admitted to having an alcohol problem. Don't you feel safer now? I feel safe.
Later
F4UDOA
F4u,
I have several guns, funny my neighbors are very safe. I also feel confident that several of them have guns too. Funny, I know that they have been drunk but I wasn't F^$*'d up by them either. Your logic doesn't wash. Over 40,000 people in the US are killed annually by drunk drivers. Are you going to turn in your vehicle? I don't feel safe as you could get drunk and then I'm totally F$^(ed. As a matter of fact I think it should be MANDATORY you turn in your vehicle, and before someone gets hurt.
Miko2d,
You are welcome to your opinion. The ability to broadcast it is your right under the constitution. Your comments are protected by that right. The name calling is another issue. I really don't give a rodents backside what you think. My actual experiance in Law Enforcement gives me a much different perspective than your nonparticipatory position could give you. I do think you need to seriously revise your usage of labels. I quite frankly seriously object to the terms you used as a personal attack on me. I would have sent you an e-mail to tell you directly but you don't seem to have posted one on the BBS. Very convenient. It says something about you that you aren't willing to be contacted even indirectly. I could say more about it including referring to you by sonme choice words but I won't stoop the your level.
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Toad,
I'm not asking that firearms be banned from private ownership. That would be almost insane to expect America to accept such a sweeping change. Besides, firearms have been an integral part of our culture, for better or worse, and I think it would be wrong to suddenly just stop it.
However, there has to be some way of controlling them. How, I don't know. Maybe we could get some ideas from other countries. The problem is, are American firearm owners willing to make a compromise? I don't think that any American expects to see firearms banned, merely restricted or controlled. These are very big questions, but people from both ends need to be willing to talk first, and that may still be a way off.
-
Toad - my point was that to compare a swimming pool to a gun is senseless. That's all. How many swimming pools are used to murder people? I made no statement as to the banning of guns wholesale. I just think that responisble owners might not mind using a registered gun club. Is that such a bad idea?
-
Dowding, my senseless point about swimming pools was to compare how senseless your arguements of removing our 2nd amendment is...where does it stop? You must ALWAYS be careful what you ask for.
-
Ok, I work my arse off 12+ hrs a day for a week or 2 and make a few thousand dollars. I take my few thousand dollars to deposit it in the bank. Now this is all the money I have, it's my life savings. I'm sorry, if you ask me it is my right to carry a freakin 357 magnum holstered on my side to protect myself and my property.
My house is probobly the last place I will ever have to defend myself, all the whacko's are out in the public. I should need no permit to protect myself, yet I do (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) If I take a gun with me to the bank while I'm making a deposit, I don't want to bring it in the bank so I put it in the glove box. Well I leave the bank and go home, otw home I get pulled over and the cop finds the gun. I have no permit so I am now subject to felony procecution, which could lead to me being put in prison with the very type of people I was protecting myself from. Not to mention if convicted of a felony I lose my right to vote. Is that liberty?
The government can take my life and allows the taking of unborn life daily, if I PERSUE what makes ME happy (and harms nobody) I get thrown in jail (if i get caught). Man those 2 are the heart of our constitution not even amendments and they are violated everyday. If we lose the 2nd amendment we're collectively fluffied, there will be nothing to stop them from doing what ever they want.
If you ask me our government needs to be reset! Ctl-alt-del Ctl-alt-del! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Udie
-
Very interesting topic and arguments, gentlemen...
I frankly dont know where to stand. I love and use guns, but cant help being impressed by the daily carnage in the admirable USA.
Strong and respectable arguments are made on both sides...
BUT:
Lets get some facts straight, especially if it´s easy to do so.
The second amendment: Would anybody care to write down its exact wording???
You see, I know that when MIETLA says :
"The Second Amendment has nothing to do with sports or hunting. It affirms an absolute and unconditional right to own and bear arms."
He is being either ignorant, misleading, or provocative.
There are many good reasons to allow firearm ownership, and most of them have been exposed here. The second amendment is NOT one of them. READ IT! (And I mean more then the first half of a sentence, subordinate clauses are there for a reason.)
Again, not taking sides here, just please stop misrepresenting and using the constitutional argument.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT ALLOW UNCONDITIONAL GUN OWNERSHIP, UNLESS YOU ARE PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Thats all I am saying here. And its a fact.
Cheers
figaro
-
Figaro...Senator Larry Craig's speech on the senate floor regarding our rights:
Mr. President, I appear on the floor to speak about a provision of the Constitution of our
country that has been under nearly constant attack for 8 years. In fact, we heard on the floor this morning two Senators speak about provisions in law that would alter a constitutional right.
The provision I am talking about is part of our Bill of Rights--the first 10 amendments to our Constitution--which protect our most basic rights from being stripped away by an overly zealous government, including rights that all Americans hold dear:
The freedom to worship according to one's conscience;
The freedom to speak or to write whatever we might think;
The freedom to criticize our Government;
And, the freedom to assemble peacefully.
Among the safeguards of these fundamental rights, we find the Second Amendment. Let me read it clearly:
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.
I want to repeat that.
The second amendment of our Constitution says very clearly that `A well regulated Militia' is `necessary' for the `security of a free State,' and that `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
What we heard this morning was an effort to infringe upon that right.
Some--even of my colleagues--will read what I have just quoted from our Constitution quite differently. They might read `A well regulated Militia,' and stop there and declare that `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' actually means that it is a right of our Government to keep and bear arms because they associate the militia with the government. Yet, under this standard, the Bill of Rights would protect only the right of a government to speak, or the right of a government to criticize itself, if you were taking that same argument and transposing it
over the first amendment. In fact, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of people from being infringed upon by Government- not the other way around.
Of course, we know that our Founding Fathers in their effort to ratify the Constitution could not convince the citizens to accept it until the Bill of Rights was established to assure the citizenry that we were protecting the citizens from Government instead of government from the citizens.
Others say that the Second Amendment merely protects hunting and sport shooting. They see
shooting competitions and hunting for food as the only legitimate uses of guns, and, therefore, conclude that the Second Amendment is no impediment to restricting gun use to those purposes.
You can hear it in the way President Clinton assures hunters that his gun controlproposals that will not trample on recreation--though his proposals certainly walk all over their rights.
In fact, the Second Amendment does not merely protect sport shooting and hunting, though it certainly does that.
Nor does the second amendment exist to protect the government's right to bear arms.
The framers of our Constitution wrote the Second Amendment with a greater purpose.
They made the Second Amendment the law of the land because it has something very particular to say about the rights of every man and every woman, and about the relationship of every man and every woman to his or her Government.
That is: The first right of every human being, the right of self-defense.
Let me repeat that: The first right of every human being is the right of self-defense. Without that right, all other rights are meaningless. The right of self-defense is not something the government bestows upon its citizens. It is an inalienable right, older than the Constitution itself. It existed prior to government and prior to the social contract of our Constitution. It is the
right that government did not create and therefore it is a right that under our Constitution the government simply cannot take away. The framers of our Constitution understood this clearly. Therefore, they did not merely acknowledge that the right exists. They denied Congress the power to infringe upon that right.[/i]
Under the social contract that is the Constitution of the United States, the American people have told Congress explicitly that we do not have the authority to abolish the American people's right to defend themselves. Further, the framers said not only does the Congress not have the power to abolish that right, but Congress may not even infringe upon that right. That is what our Constitution says. That is what the Second Amendment clearly lays out. Our Founding
Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to tell us that a free state cannot exist if the people are denied the right or the means to defend themselves.
Let me repeat that because it is so fundamental to our freedom. A free state cannot exist, our free state of the United States collectively, cannot exist without the right of the people to defend themselves. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment. Over the years a lot of our citizens and many politicians have tried to nudge that definition around. But contrary to what
the media and the President say, the right to keep and bear arms is as important today as it was 200 years ago.
Every day in this country thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Americans use guns to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Oftentimes, complete strangers are protected by that citizen who steps up and stops the thief or the stalker or the rapist or the murderer from going at that citizen.
According to the FBI, criminals used guns in 1998 380,000 times across America. Yet research indicates that peaceful, law-abiding Americans, using their constitutional right, used a gun to prevent 2.5 million crimes in America that year and nearly every year. In fact, I believe the benefits of protecting the people's right to keep and bear arms far outweighs the destruction wrought by criminals and firearms accidents. The Centers for Disease Control report 32,000 Americans died from firearm injuries in 1997; under any estimate, that is a tragedy.
Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control do not keep data on the number of lives that were saved when guns were used in a defensive manner.
Yet if we were to survey the public every year, we would find 400,000 Americans report they used a gun in a way that almost certainly saved either their life or someone else's. Is that estimate too high? Perhaps. I hope it is, because every time a life is saved from violence, that means that someone was threatening a life with violence. But that number would have to be over 13 times too high for our opponents to be correct when they say that guns are used to kill more often than they are used to protect. What they have been saying here and across America
simply isn't true and the facts bear that out.
We are not debating the tragedy. We are debating facts at this moment. They cannot come up with 2.5 million gun crimes. But clearly, through surveys, we can come up with 2.5 million crimes thwarted every year when someone used a gun in defense of themselves or their property. In many cases, armed citizens not only thwarted crime, but they held the suspect until the authorities arrived and placed that person in custody.
Stories of people defending themselves with guns do not make the nightly news. It just simply isn't news in America. It isn't hot. It isn't exciting. It is American. Sometimes when people act in an American way, it simply isn't reportable in our country anymore. So the national news media doesn't follow it.
Yet two of the school shootings that have brought gun issues to the forefront in the last year, in Pearl, MS, and Edinboro, PA, were stopped by peaceful gun owners using their weapons to subdue the killer until the police arrived. How did that get missed in the story? It was mentioned once, in passing, and then ignored as people ran to the floor of the Senate to talk about the tragedy of the killing. Of course the killing was a tragedy, but it was also heroic that
someone used their constitutional right to save lives in the process.
A third school shooting in Springfield, OR, was stopped because some parents took time to
teach their child the wise use of guns. So when that young man heard a particular sound coming
from the gun, he was able to rush the shooter, because he knew that gun had run out of
ammunition. He was used to guns. He was around them. He subdued the shooter and saved
potentially many other lives. We have recognized him nationally for that heroic act, that young
high school student of Springfield, OR.
For some reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never want to tell these stories.
They only want to say, after a crisis such as this, `Pass a new gun control law and call 9-1-1.'
Yet these stories are essential to our understanding of the right of people to keep and bear arms.
I will share a few of these stories right now. Shawnra Pence, a 29-year-old mother from
Sequim, WA, home alone with one of her children, heard an intruder break into the house. She took her .9 mm, took her child to the bedroom, and when the 18-year-old criminal broke into the bedroom, she said, `Get out of my house, I have a gun, get out now.' He left and the police caught him. She saved her life and her child's life. It made one brief story in the Peninsula Daily news in Sequim, WA.
We have to talk about these stories because it is time America heard the other side of this debate. There are 2.5 million Americans out there defending themselves and their property by the use of their constitutional right.
In Cumberland, TN, a 28-year-old Jason McCulley broke into the home of Stanley Horn and his wife, tied up the couple at knife-point, and demanded to know where the couple kept some cash. While Mrs. Horn was directing the robber, Mr. Horn wriggled free from his restraints, retrieved his handgun, shot the intruder, and then called the police. The intruder, Jason McCulley, subsequently died. If some Senators on the other side of the aisle had their way,
perhaps the Horns would have been killed and Jason McCulley would have walked away.
Earlier today, we heard the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from California read the names people killed by guns in America. Some day they may read the name Jason McCulley. I doubt they will tell you how he died, however, because it doesn't advance their goal of destroying the Second Amendment. But As Paul Harvey might say: Now you know the rest of the story.
Every 13 seconds this story is repeated across America. Every 13 seconds in America
someone uses a gun to stop a crime. Why do our opponents never tell these stories? Why do the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms ignore this reality that is relived by 2.5 million Americans every year? Why is it that all we hear from them is, `Pass a new gun control law, and, by the way, call 9 1-1.'
I encourage all listening today, if you have heard of someone using their Second Amendment
rights to prevent a crime, to save a life, to protect another life, then send us your story. There are people here who desperately need to hear this in Washington, right here on Capitol Hill. This is a story that should be played out every day in the press but isn't.
So let's play it out, right here on the floor of the Senate. Send me those stories from your local newspapers about that law-abiding citizen who used his constitutional right of self-defense.
Send that story to me, Senator Larry Craig, Washington, DC, 20510, or send it to your own
Senator. Let him or her know the rest of the story of America's constitutional rights.
Having said all of this, let there be no mistake. Guns are not for everyone. We restrict children's access to guns and we restrict criminals' access to guns, but we must not tolerate politicians who tell us that the Second Amendment only protects the right to hunt. We must not tolerate politicians who infringe upon our right to defend ourselves from thieves and stalkers
and rapists and murderers. And we must not tolerate the politician who simply says: `Pass another gun control law and call 9-1-1.'
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Figaro. I suggest you research what the Framers of The Constitution meant when they penned The Bill of Rights. I will give you some help. George Mason, regarded as the father of The Bill of Rights, defined militia as follows: "They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
It is not The National Guard as some would believe.
George Washington stated that the 2nd Amendment was "next in importance to the Constitution itself as the 'American people's liberty teeth.'"
If you want more, I will be more than happy to assist ya. <S>
-
To Maverick,
I reread my post and I regret using the words I did. I appologise for that. I will make en edit to the same post with an appology.
I did not make my e-mail public because I prefer not to receive unsolicited e-mail. You may still draw any conclusions you want from that fact, but you do not have any basis for any opinion on how participatory my position is.
I also want to add that I have highest regard for law enforcement officers, serving or retired.
In view of all that I want to point out that while I have no problem with your opinions on the issue, your statements about leonid's post are completely untrue.
Leonid does not "force" his opinion on anyone. Your post is one of the most forcefull posts I saw on this topic. While I had a few disagreements with leonid on this board, I was always impressed by his objectivity and deep knowlege of the subject discussed.
You mock his attempt to post his views ("Yet you feel the "right" ti tell others how to live their lives. Excuse me, but who died and made YOU God?") and urge him to him not to make his views public ("I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you decide to live YOUR life the way YOU want and leave others ... to live the way THEY want.") while you do exactly that and refer to the first amendment. That is kind of hipoctitical on your part.
While you do not use foul language in your post, your creative use of English language and very personal attack on the poster rather then his/her views make your posts more provocative. Also, using caps in a post means shouting. Seing that was some reasons, though no excuse, that I used the words I did.
Again, I appologise.
I hope now that now that I expressed myself civilly, you will consider my opinion.
Regards,
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Originally posted by figaro:
You see, I know that when MIETLA says :
"The Second Amendment has nothing to do with sports or hunting. It affirms an absolute and unconditional right to own and bear arms."
He is being either ignorant, misleading, or provocative.
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
"...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Thomas Jefferson.
-
Ripsnort, Apache,
Thank you for the added perspective.
You get into the meaning of the words, I was just being literal.
Literaly (word for word), the right to hold guns is not absolute. I stand by my original statement.
As to the meaning, well I dont know...
I would like to know why the founders felt they had to add mention of a militia (you partially answered that), or why they had to get into the "well-regulated" business (you didnt answer that at all).
Believe me guys, I am not trying to provoke. I have guns at home myself (not handguns), I am just interested in the constitutional interpretation.
Mietla: sorry, I dont see the point of this admirable quote. I thought we (and you) were talking strictly about the wording and meaning of the second amendment. Thats all I am talking about.
Cheers
figaro
-
Figaro,
If it appears that I am being antagonistic, I am not. I read your post and simply wanted to point out what I considered to be a misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment on your part.
In your post you state that the 2nd Amendment does not allow unconditional gun ownership unless you are part of a well regulated militia. Thats the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. We are the well regulated militia, the people, to protect ourselves from a possible runaway federal government.
BTW, "well regulated": At the time of the framing of the Constitution, and in this context, that phrase would have meant "trained in military discipline and use of arms." The vision of the Framers was that the members of the militia (the armed populace) would be organized in small military units for the purpose of training, and occasionally for actual military use. Each member would be expected to supply his own arms, which would be made possible by the recognition of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
<S>
Apache
-
Founding Fathers were very much afraid that the government they just created will (with time) become oppresive and tyrannical (boy, were they right). They gave us the Second Ammendment as to tool to overthrow such corrupt government.
I don't recall an exact quote, but I believe that Jefferson also said:
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that we won't need it until the government will try to take it away."
Unfortunately, the libs were successful in redirecting the Second Amendment debate to hunting/target practice direction.
Bill of Right does not grant us any rights. It only asserts them as fundamental and unalienable, and forbids the government to abridge them.
-
Miko2d,
First, apology accepted for the terms used.
I use caps as I do not know how to use the bold feature that is obviously in here somewhere. Others use it so it must be available. I have no other way to convey emphasis without the usage of caps. I am a computer dweeb.
I still stand by my position as to Leonid's intent in his post. His usage of this forum to espouse his opinions is obviously permitted. It is the "O'Club" for off AH topics. I was reacting to his posts conclusion that guns are the problem and the solution is that guns must be controlled, ie banned / restricted.
In my opinion, it is not the presence of guns that is the big change over the last 200+ years that have become a problem. It is the lack of personal responsibility of our citizens. This ranges from inattention to parenting to unwillingness to control oneself. The lack of "proper" behaviour on the part of a minority (in this country) is being used as a reason to impose a restriction on those who behave in a responsible manner. The gun "control" advocates like to use very emotionaly charged words and phrases to "prove" their side of the argument. What it all comes down to is punishing the majority for the misdeeds of the few. In this Country it is a basic tenet that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the case of "gun control" the accused are all gun owners who have been "convicted" of no improper acts involving firearms based on the acts of an admittedly small minority of societal predators. Now I ask you. Is it proper to punish the majority for the acts of the few? Is it proper to force restrictions and prohibitions on the innocent to include confiscation and legal criminal sanctions on those who have never committed an act against others in the population? Is it proper to create a new class of criminal soley by passage of a possession law absent any overt criminal act on the part of the newly created offender? I refer you to the social experiment of prohibition. A minority was able to pass legislation prohibiting the possession of and consumption of spirits. This was touted as a boon to remove the ills of society. The enforced sobriety would remove the reason most criminal acts were commited, namely the deinhibiting feature of drink. The result was the instant creation of a massive number of federal law violators. Anyone who had a drink was in violation of the new federal law. This was in fact a majority of the population. It also made it possible for organized crime to flourish and grow to a multi million dollar entity (not to mention the fortunes of several politicians ie. Joe Kennedy).
The social experiment was a wonder of legislating morality and a wonder of creation of imorality by virtue of those who ignored the law.
The forcing of the opinion that the average person could not be trusted to have alcohol created a much worse situation. The many were punished for the actions of the few.
I see this same situation coming up in several areas.
The media or "public interest groups" pandered to by the media like to vilify multiple activities. Examples:
PETA- "eating meat is murder"
drinking milk is subjugating cattle to abuse by mankind, and prostate cancer is caused by milk.
Hunting is bad. Fishing is bad as it causes pain to te fish when it bites the hook. (Don't laugh, an anti fishing innitiaive was started in AZ using this as justification)
Sierra Club- all off road vehicles are causing irreversable damage to the environment and SUV's should be banned. Population centers are bad as they impact riparian areas and cause extinction.
Humane Society- Hunting is bad and animals should be allowed to flourish in the wild on their own. Mankind is incapable of managing wildlife. (This totally ignores that mankind is a part of nature.)
Green Peace- fishing in the oceans with a net is bad. nuclear weapons are bad. oil is bad.
And so on. Now don't get me wrong. I do not think that these organizations are "bad". They do have some real and valid points. I think they carry them to an extreme. I believe these organizations have a purpose and can do good things as long as they do not take it too far.
I believe that coercing a population to conform to a new behaviour based soley on the opinion of a segment being "offended" is not proper. In a free society oposing views must be allowed. If they are not then there is no freedom of thought or belief.
I see that I have rambled on quite a bit. I am sorry for that.
Does this help clarify where I am coming from Miko2d?
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
The United States was formed a little over 200 years ago. It has sustained itself on a document about 200 years old. It has had some freedoms added over the years to change with the times.
But...the US is a relatively young country. Very young compaired to Europe. Yet, we have the oldest standing government in the world. I think that says something for the constitution. And that the framers knew exactly what they were doing after the Articles of Confederation failed.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. We have stablity because of longevity. Special intrest groups managed to do it once and ended up with 13 years of pure hell. I would like to avoid something like that myself.
Bring on the rock salt!
- Jig
-
Jigster,
Actually Iceland has the longest standing government in the world. Since 990AD or therabouts.
England also is longer standing, since about 1660 or 70.
But I think we in the US are doing a bit better than they are on most issues.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Here's a prime example of why we need the 2nd amendment and no permits....
About 3 months before I started college I moved to Killeen, Tx. My best friend ran a car lot with his grand father and I needed to get out of Houston. Well I was driving to K-mart one day to aply for a job, when I was passed on the freeway by 2 cops going at least 150mph, the wind from their cars blew me into the emergency lane. Sadly it turns out that they were on their way to Luby's in Killeen where George Hennard was in the middle of his shooting spree.
Well about 3 years later my friend and me were playing cards in his office when a man walks in wanting to buy a van for his church. We got to talking to him and found out that he was actualy shot in the Luby's killings and that he had almost died himself. He had a lady from his church with him that day that was there at Luby's too.
Guess what, she had a gun on her person the day of the shootings. She made alot of bank deposits for her job so she kept a gun with her during the day. Now this was before we had the concealed carry permit here in Texas, so it was a felony for her to have the gun. So she left the gun in her glove box while she went into Luby's to eat. She said she was trained and knew how to shoot and went to the shooting range quite often. So she knows that had she had her gun with her she could have stopped him after his 1st or 2nd shot.
She said that she was in the middle of the resteraunt eating and that there was no clear line of sight from him to her, so she could have gotten her gun out of her purse with no problem. Before the shooting there was a lattice wall with an ivy plant growning all over it. Alas all she could do was crouch under the table and watch him kill 23 people hoping that she would not be one of them. She was EXTREMELY angry that she didn't have the right to carry that gun with her, she has ever since that day. She also helped lobby the state for the concealed carry permit.
23 people died that day that didn't have to, 24 if you count the killer. She could have and would have stopped it had she not been afraid of her governments reaction to her using her 2nd amendment right.
udie
-
Udie, and the perpetrator used what to kill? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Does it not strike you as odd that apart from some very isolated and rare occurences, this does not happen in well developed industrialized countries with much more strict gun laws?
There are two options, and I believe one of them *must* be used to "fix" the problem. One is tougher handgun legislation. The other is letting citizens pack a gun *at all times* for self defense.
I never saw the idea behind letting a guy own a gun in his home (we have that here, with shotguns and so forth), but *not* lettimg him carry it during the time he is most vulrenable to attack - when he is out of the home.
You don't need a handgun at home - shotguns do the job quite nicely. handguns are much better suited for personal defense when *outside* the home due to their small and compact size. So why not allow citizens to carry it on them when you allow hem to own and have them in their house?
If they're law abiding, no problem. If they ain't, big time problem.
Guess letting people carry guns around would make the police much more jumpy, and the occupation more dangerous than it already is.
Despite readin negative press about bad cops in the US, I gotta say that I admire the good guys. Dangerous job that can turn into total chaos in an instant. Much more pressure than their European counterparts in terms of personal safety. Think the good cops need more recognition than they're getting.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"
-
Originally posted by figaro:
Literaly (word for word), the right to hold guns is not absolute. I stand by my original statement.figaro
There is an awful lot of evidence that suggest you are incorrect.
There is a topic "The Second Amendment" in this O-Club, dated 8/8/00 that deals with this subject and gives many references that you might find enlightening.
Give it a read from start to finish and then see what you think.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
StSanta:"There are two options, and I believe one of them *must* be used to "fix" the problem. One is tougher handgun legislation. The other is letting citizens pack a gun *at all times* for self defense."
Did you know that 96 % of all crimes committed with a handgun, the person got that handgun thru unlawful or non-registered means? So , what good would tougher legislation do? Then only the criminals have the guns.
Give me a few, I post the new data released showing how crime is down in the states that have concealed weapons permits that can be issued without a past criminal behavior...crimes are WAY down for those states, so, I would guess you would probably support allowing more CWP's?
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Rip
Handguns are so readily available due to a flooded market that getting one is so easy, even for criminals. Enormous black market compared to here.
I seriously doubt a situation like in Europe can develop in the US because of this. So I ain't advocating banning handguns in the US.
But, at the very least, with a handgun, ya should go through something similar to a driver's license IMHO. And not yer wussie driver license tests; make it DK style.
In other words, sure, you can have a handgun, if you've completed proper training.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/stsantasatan/crossbuster.gif)
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
Ripsnort, but swimming pools less likely pops in front of you asking for your moneys... (with somewhat undenyable handgun assist)
One day I was assault by the swimming pool. Well, had too much vodka, but still, this one pool was really agressive (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Fariz
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Rip
Handguns are so readily available due to a flooded market that getting one is so easy, even for criminals. Enormous black market compared to here.
I seriously doubt a situation like in Europe can develop in the US because of this. So I ain't advocating banning handguns in the US.
But, at the very least, with a handgun, ya should go through something similar to a driver's license IMHO. And not yer wussie driver license tests; make it DK style.
In other words, sure, you can have a handgun, if you've completed proper training.
StSanta,
What you have just proposed is giving the government the ability to deny a right. This is what some of us have been trying to explain to you. Once a system has been put in place where a citizen must prove to an agency they are worthy to enjoy that right, it no longer is a right. It becomes an option. This means it can be denied. If something can be denied without court action it is no longer a right. In the US,the Bill of Rights is not a document that grants rights. It is a document that restricts the government from interferring in those rights. It is a subtle difference. Americans are in the position to have an expectation that the government is not in the position to grant or give things. It can make some guarantees based on requirements placed on it through the constitution, such as common defense etc. but it (the government) does not grant rights. The Government was not given any authority to do so.
If a thing can be restriced, it can be denied. Drivers licenses are an issue in example. There is no constitutional right to drive. This is a priveledge granted by the individual states. This priveledge can be and is regularly denied. The fact that licensing is a requirement to legally operate a motor vehicle has not controlled the misuse of them. The number one cause of death for young people in the US is auto collisions.
I regularly found people who had their driving priveledges removed (suspension of license) who were still driving. I made 3 arrests of the same person in 6 weeks for drunken driving. Each time he was so drunk he could not stand still or walk on his own. The first arrest automatically suspended his license. He continued to drive. As far as I know this person is still driving. Short of keeping him incarcerated there is no way to keep him from behind the wheel.
I have a question for you. Your cross in a slashed circle. Are you saying that Chritianity is prohibited???
Mav
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
I have a question for you. Your cross in a slashed circle. Are you saying that Chritianity is prohibited???
Mav
Maverick, I share your concern but don't bite.
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
England also is longer standing, since about 1660 or 70.
But I think we in the US are doing a bit better than they are on most issues.
Good point Karnak - we do have the 'Mother of all Parliaments'
But the last part; what issues are those, please?
No Maverick, Christianity isn't prohibited, it's prohibitive. But seriously StSanta - it's out of order (as if you didn't know).
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Santa,
He used a couple of guns a bunch of ammo and his truck. Well nobody got killed by the truck, but he drove it through a window to get into the resteraunt. It was a gun that stopped him too. Officer Al Morris shot and wounded him. Then he went into the restroom and shot himself in the head. Ironicly, Al Morris was a detective not a patrolman. He investigated auto thefts, my roomate had a car stolen off his lot one time and Mr. Morris was the investigating officer.
He pulled into Luby's for lunch just after the shooting had started, before any other police got there. He was a cop so he had his gun on him and he stopped the murdering. Had he not shown up there's no telling how many would have died, the killer had alot of ammo left.
On more gun legislation. Here's the 2nd amendment...
"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."
The way I read it there should be NO legislation on weapons at all. Most probobly think I'm crazy for that. I'm talking full automatic too baby! Would you brake into my house if I had an uzi? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) And in Texas I think it legal to holster a weapon and go outside with it, as long as it's not concealed. I know I can walk down the street with a rifle and shotgun and it's perfectly legal (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) That's not to say the police won't stop me and ask about it though.
But you know what the funny/sad part is. 90% of the gun laws that der slickmiester klinton got passed were already laws on the books since the late 60's that have never been inforced. So hey let's reword them a bit and repass them! Then we can use the issue to "school lunch" the Republicans.
I'm not too worried though, if my government ever tells me I can't buy a gun, I'll just drive down by the Astrodome and go buy me a $50 pistol or find a friend with a gun for sale and I won't register it either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) why? because I don't have too. It's my 2nd amendment right and there's nothing anybody can do about it. I will be getting a shotgun soon, I'm going to do some quail hunting this season I think. All this talk of guns has made me want to go hunting again.
Welp I need to go out and get some business done. The local Republican party headquarters had put a new quota on us. I now have to starve 5 children and kill 5 old people a month. But hey ya gotta do what ya gotta do for that good ole "evil right wing conspiracy"
Udie
Originally posted by StSanta:
Udie, and the perpetrator used what to kill? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Does it not strike you as odd that apart from some very isolated and rare occurences, this does not happen in well developed industrialized countries with much more strict gun laws?
There are two options, and I believe one of them *must* be used to "fix" the problem. One is tougher handgun legislation. The other is letting citizens pack a gun *at all times* for self defense.
I never saw the idea behind letting a guy own a gun in his home (we have that here, with shotguns and so forth), but *not* lettimg him carry it during the time he is most vulrenable to attack - when he is out of the home.
You don't need a handgun at home - shotguns do the job quite nicely. handguns are much better suited for personal defense when *outside* the home due to their small and compact size. So why not allow citizens to carry it on them when you allow hem to own and have them in their house?
If they're law abiding, no problem. If they ain't, big time problem.
Guess letting people carry guns around would make the police much more jumpy, and the occupation more dangerous than it already is.
Despite readin negative press about bad cops in the US, I gotta say that I admire the good guys. Dangerous job that can turn into total chaos in an instant. Much more pressure than their European counterparts in terms of personal safety. Think the good cops need more recognition than they're getting.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Jigster,
Actually Iceland has the longest standing government in the world. Since 990AD or therabouts.
England also is longer standing, since about 1660 or 70.
But I think we in the US are doing a bit better than they are on most issues.
Sisu
-Karnak
Let me rephrase. A Legitimate government. ( or a single form of government, stablity)
Name a single country that has had a supreme law that has stood longer then the US Constitution. I'm not trying to be antagonistic towards the other countries, but... no government I am aware of has ever been as stable as the US's, or that hasn't removed, changed, or destroyed major parts (sweeping changes) without the consent of the governed.
i.e. a government that governs with the power, authority, and consent of the people.
That was the reason the colonies revolted. They were being governed with no way to effect how they were goverend (no seats in parliment)
A legitimate government is defined by it's supreme/ fundemental laws (aka a constitution)
A constitution:
a) defines the structure of the government.
b) defines the power of the government.
c) defines the rights of the citizens.
d) makes a government legitimate
The US government has stood for over 200 years. The Athenians had the oldest form of legitmate government, but it perished.
Most of the governments of Europe have been ultimately unstable, not by choice of course. Enland alone has had both monarchy and oligarchy previously. Then you get into the world wars where the "old governments" were sent sprawling from invasions and conquering.
Most industrial nations now have some form of a constitution. The UK really didn't move to a legitimate form of government till did away with it's colonies (or allowed those colonies participation) As did France during it's revolution.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
I can't believe people still resort to the US constitution as a justification of insane gun lobbying. It is absolutly ignorant.
Do you know when the United States Constitution was signed? Do you know the history of the events that led up to its signing? Do you know the situtation the americans of the late 1700s were facing with the British Empire?
Get a grip people. The Constitution also says that people of colour are half a man. Are you going to use that to support your views too?
THINGS CHANGE - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THIS FACT.
Geez, why does absolutly everyone on earth see his, except americans? What is your obsession with guns?
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Do you know when the United States Constitution was signed?
Yes, I'm sure we all do.
Do you know the procedure for amending it?
Rule of law....go figure why anyone would want that.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Jigster - I really don't think you can call the British government unstable; we've had pretty much the same form of goverment since 1660, when the monarchy was reinstated after the failure of Cromwell's Commonwealth.
We have never been invaded or conquered since 1066; no populist revolution has taken place on these shores.
We have never had a written constitution, and we do not have one today. Yet there is no rioting in the streets or anarchy. Would you call our government illegitimate then, by your definition?
...or that hasn't removed, changed, or destroyed major parts (sweeping changes) without the consent of the governed.
This describes Britains government quite well also. It's true that people in our colonies did not get a vote or have representation in parliament; I'm not mud-slinging here, but wasn't that true for your black population until this century? Also, what about your civil war, when the government went against the wishes of a large proportion of its population (I'm sure I don't need to remind you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))?
I'm not trying to start a war on this, Britain vs US, just pointing out some inaccuracies in your post. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Udie, hm, can you ship me some automatics too?
I mean, it would be cool to have one.
I need lots of ammo too, the McDonalds here have lots of customers.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Or maybe a .50 sniper rifle. Voted "Most likely to become a rooftop sniper" by my friends back in my teens (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Now, I have to go save the whales, remove pollution, feed the starving and continue my communist plan of world domination.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
I wonder what Jefferson would have thought of the outcome of that amendment.
In Canada we live in the shadow of the US. Militarily, Economically, Culturally. As an IT proffesional I have many friends that now live in the states and many friends that I work with are from the states. You ussually have to be told that a person is not Canadian to know it. But talk about guns.. and you see the difference very quickly.
An American that has never even handled a gun will spout out the "people kill people" line by heart in 2 seconds. I try to assure them that guns do kill people, but they can not see it. I use my "how about nuclear weapons?" (certainly Jefferson would have wanted his warriors to have weapons capable of defeating the government?) arguments and their eyes gloss over. That is silly they say and then they recount somthing about a swimming pool.
I grew up with guns in a very rural setting like some americans have mentioned above. I own a gun. I would say that 25 years ago there was little to tell between the attitude about guns in the US and in Canada. But that is not true now.
They learn to love guns on their mothers knee. Such love will not be denied.
If anyone ever jumps out of their car at my kids school and pulls out a swimming pool, I hope I can get my pool out fast enough to stop most of the tragedy.
I would hope that something could be done about the gun industry itself. Guns dont ware out. Let those Ruger, S&W, Colt, etc employees make up-scale machined CD racks for a few years. Companies must grow market share to be successful or grow the market. Do even Americans think that is a good idea in the case of pocket sized 18 shot killing machines?
I think Charlton Heston would be very dissappointed with how Jefferson would react to what has been allowed to continue in the name of his ammendment. I think that his reaction would be similar to Winston Churchills reaction to what has been done with welfare.
-
An American that has never even handled a gun will spout out the "people kill people" line by heart in 2 seconds.
I guess its because they are used to Canadians spouting "Oh yeah.. what about gun violence!" whenever an argument isn't going their way. Regardless of wether the person they are talking to owns a gun or not.
Of course, its ok to have an opinion on someone else's policy or view's if you are Canadian, but if you are American and use the above term.. you'd better have handled a gun?
I use my "how about nuclear weapons?" (certainly Jefferson would have wanted his warriors to have weapons capable of defeating the government arguments and their eyes gloss over.)
I suppose that is because the shear stupidity of this argument is hard to comprehend. And you were ridiculing "guns don't kill people.. people kill people"? Wow.. I guess people are just having a hard time with your double standard as far as what is/isn't acceptable in a discussion.
I would hope that something could be done about the gun industry itself. Guns dont ware out. Let those Ruger, S&W, Colt, etc employees make up-scale machined CD racks for a few years. Companies must grow market share to be successful or grow the market. Do even Americans think that is a good idea in the case of pocket sized 18 shot killing machines?
What? Are you refering to guns not wearing out as being something we should be CONCERNED about?
I have a freind who's dad has a 43 Cadillac. It is in imaculate condition. It has 5000 miles on the odometer. It was placed in the garage when his grandfather died and never driven much again. That was 50+ years ago. Something not used is bound to last longer than something is.
My uncle has a machine shop. A tour around will reveal that most of the equipment was made during world war II. You can barely tell a 60 year old machining lathe from a 10 year old one. Something built well will do its job for many decades.
Now.. combine something built well with something that isn't used very often. That shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.
I guess Canadians are just used to anything they make falling apart?
I think Charlton Heston would be very dissappointed with how Jefferson would react to what has been allowed to continue in the name of his ammendment. I think that his reaction would be similar to Winston Churchills reaction to what has been done with welfare.
That's quite an endorsement you have there. Of course, I'm sure gun rights advocates could pick several long-dead people to endorse them too.
And of course, you are running under the faulty deduction that your view was logical and Thomas Jefferson was logical.. so Thomas Jefferson would aprove your view. This is not logical.
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
I can't believe people still resort to the US constitution as a justification of insane gun lobbying. It is absolutly ignorant.
Do you know when the United States Constitution was signed? Do you know the history of the events that led up to its signing? Do you know the situtation the americans of the late 1700s were facing with the British Empire?
Get a grip people. The Constitution also says that people of colour are half a man. Are you going to use that to support your views too?
THINGS CHANGE - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THIS FACT.
Geez, why does absolutly everyone on earth see his, except americans? What is your obsession with guns?
If you start changing what this country was founded on, be prepared to change ALL your rights, not just guns, but the right to practice what religion you prefer as well, be very careful what you ask for...its like taking one animal out of the food chain, you will affect ALL your rights if you restrict one of them.
-
All good points Deja...
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
I wonder what Jefferson would have thought of the outcome of that amendment.
...I think Charlton Heston would be very dissappointed with how Jefferson would react to what has been allowed to continue in the name of his ammendment. I think that his reaction would be similar to Winston Churchills reaction to what has been done with welfare.
Well there is a historical record of some things that TJ did say about guns.
Here's a few quotes.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
These are things he DID say.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
My god. What have I wrought!
That would be my guess
But your points are good ones. Maybe he would think it was great.
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
Why can't people comprehend the historical circumstances and events that led to "the right to bare arms"? My God people, you're clinging on to a law that was founded over 300 years ago during an entirely different epoch and eviorn!
I think people are smart enough (or should be) to realise when some things need to change. America, the world has grown up around you, now it's your turn and you're clinging to the past, a past you do not understand yourself.
Isn't it funny how the best counties in the world (as assigned by the U.N.) all have gun restrictions and well balanced education systems in its place? Oh, that must just be a coincidence. America placed 28th - Canada placed 1st, followed by Denmark, Sweeden and Switzerland.
A lot of things change in 300 years.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Wow, we numbeer two?
<looks at himself>
Good joke! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
In countries with stricter gun controls less people die of gun shot wounds.
You need a license to drive a car but nit to shoot a gun! Is it true you can buy guns in supermarkets? If so would this mean a violent mental patient could buy a gun whenever he wants? Do you let blind people drive? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Why can't people comprehend the historical circumstances and events that led to "the right to bare arms"? My God people, you're clinging on to a law that was founded over 300 years ago during an entirely different epoch and eviorn!
_____________________________ ________________
Igloo,
We also have a few other decadent 224 year old laws. The right of free speech. The right to peaceably assemble, the right to worship as we (the individual) sees fit. By the way it is the right to bear arms. Even in European countries people have the right to have bare arms. (as long as it isn't too cold!)
_____________________________ _______________
I think people are smart enough (or should be) to realise when some things need to change. America, the world has grown up around you, now it's your turn and you're clinging to the past, a past you do not understand yourself.
_____________________________ ________________
Now since these rights all come based on the same document, they must all be out of date as well huh? Now just which laws do you think we should be allowed to live by. You seem to be of the mind that you know far better how we should live than we do. Come, give us the benefit of your vast wisdom and tell us how to live our lives. ooops! That violates the right to liberty. Guess that one has to go too.
You know, I think that what I have just asked you to do was called tyrany. Where you get to make the choices and we have to do what you say. (Perhaps I understand my countrys past far better than do you.)
_____________________________ ________________
Isn't it funny how the best counties in the world (as assigned by the U.N.) all have gun restrictions and well balanced education systems in its place? Oh, that must just be a coincidence. America placed 28th - Canada placed 1st, followed by Denmark, Sweeden and Switzerland.
A lot of things change in 300 years.
____________________________________________
You say the best countries in the world as assigned by the UN. I guess that means someone voted and gave the UN authority to determine who the best countries are. I don't recall the UN being on the ballot in the last election. Exactly where and who are my representatives in the UN?? How did they get in the position of representing me and determining how I should live? Where is my say with this group of representatives??? Who gave them power to determine the course of my life? Finally, why should I care what they think???
Part of the past I cling to is that I live in a country where I have an elected representative that is in the position they occupy based on our (the electors) approval. They are to do things based on what we (the electors) feel they should do. In other words, they are there to do what we( the electors) tell them to do, not the other way around. I suppose this would have to go as well. It is based on the same 224 year old laws.
Now I do not tell you how to live, how to act or what to believe. Why do you think you have the right to do that to me?
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 09-27-2000).]
-
You say the best countries in the world as assigned by the UN. I guess that means someone voted and gave the UN authority to determine who the best countries are.
Each country's representative in the UN voted. I saw one of the ballots once. Each country was listed... then another box was placed at the bottom that said "Any country other than the US".
AKDejaVu
-
Do you seriously believe that if one law is changed, all others will have to as well? Give me a break. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Slavery was not outlawed by the constitution either, infact it was practically supported. The right to bear (it was a typo) arms comes from a time when the British Empire was trying to crush a rebellian in its American colonies. Those circumstances no longer arise in todays enviornment and the right to bear arms is no longer needed. Do you seriously believe that if gun restrictions were placed on guns, more people would die from guns??? Do the math, it's that simple.
Nations need to adapt. If one of those all powerfull 244 laws need changing, change it. Adapt to the world you live in, it is not 1770 anymore.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
A very clear, simple and straightforward process for amending the Constitution already exists.
The procedure deals with one specific law at a time.
If the Constitution needs changing, why hasn't anyone begun the procedure? What's holding anyone back? The anti-2nd Amendment folks are already spending lots of money but none of it is on a Constitutional Amendment drive. Go figure.
I wonder how the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia feel about the right to bear arms that no one needs anymore? Ah, they probably feel "it's no longer needed."
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Igloo,
Quite frankly there is no need to adapt the constitution. It is working just fine thank you. I don't know where you are from as you don't have any profile entry. Are you speaking from the outside looking in perhaps? That would explain why you insist on making a change and the lack of comprehension of the importance of the document.
Slavery was not mandated by the constitution. It was a fact of life at the time but was not there by constitutional provision.
Finally, why should the constitution be changed because there is something in it you don't like? We don't make changes in it based on "politically corretct speak". We did do just that at one time and it made a much larger mess than any improvement the change was to accomplish. Why are you interested in limiting or punishing people who have not made any criminal act? Do you think that people are guilty until proven innocent? Are people not capable of deciding for themselve how to live or do you feel you must tell them how to live? Why punish the many for the acts of the very few?
Mav
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Do you seriously believe that if one law is changed, all others will have to as well? Give me a break. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Slavery was not outlawed by the constitution either, infact it was practically supported. The right to bear (it was a typo) arms comes from a time when the British Empire was trying to crush a rebellian in its American colonies. Those circumstances no longer arise in todays enviornment and the right to bear arms is no longer needed. Do you seriously believe that if gun restrictions were placed on guns, more people would die from guns??? Do the math, it's that simple.
Nations need to adapt. If one of those all powerfull 244 laws need changing, change it. Adapt to the world you live in, it is not 1770 anymore.
So, what exactly are you saying?
They we're stupid for wanting to own guns?
While it's true that society has changed in the last couple-hundred years, we really don't need to ban guns.
The only result of this action would be basically giving the guns to the very people you want to keep them from! How long before a cop goes bad and sells a few weapons from the back room for a nice chunk of change?
How long before the Mexicans and Columbians get wind of this and start up a black market multiple times larger then they already have?
What most people don't realize is the futility of this whole argument. The Anti-gun crowds will continue to squeak and moan, but the simple fact is, that's all they do.
I'm all for restricting gun ownership, this CAN tone the problem down. At least it eliminates sources from which the criminal can attain one.
But there's always the black market, and as long as that exists, and guns can be attained by criminals, who the hell are you to tell me that I can't defend myself?
In Oklahoma we have a thing called the "Make my day" law. No toejam. You break into someone's house, you can get shot. I am friends with an older gal who spread a burlgar through her hallway with a double barrelled 10 gauge. She unloaded both barrels on his ass. She then called the cops.
I have a gun collection. I have a Colt 1911A1 .45 ACP for home defense. If you come into my house uninvited, and put me in danger, you WILL leave in a body bag.
------------------
-Rebel
JG2 "Richtofen"
"You Rebel Scum"
-
"They we're stupid for wanting to own guns?"
Short and sweet, YES.
"Mexicans and Columbians"
These nations do not produce or deal in weapons, either legally or illegally. The "market" you refer to is of a different nature.
In fact its the other way around. The US is the chief exporter of illegal weapons into these countries (France being #1 LEGAL exporter). BTW, its "Colombians" not "Columbians". US educational system fails once again *grin*
"But there's always the black market, and as long as that exists, and guns can be attained by criminals, who the hell are you to tell me that I can't defend myself?"
I'll try to dig up the statistics for you, but way more than half of all crimes in the us are commited with legally acquired weapons. That they were stolen or sold out to criminals by their legal owners is another matter though.. but the guns STILL came from legal sources. If weapons are banned, then ANYONE with a weapon will have to acquire them illegally, and that in itself is not only hard, but it will make it easier for the authorities to solve any crimes and probably close down the source of the murder weapon.
"In Oklahoma we have a thing called the "Make my day" law. No toejam. You break into someone's house, you can get shot. "
We have the same law in Colombia too. If you have your property fenced (as 99.9% of the homes are) and someone jumps into your yard you can shove a grenade on them if you want. My country's case is a perfect example of what a "let people have guns" law would do: Home owners are armed... nearly all of them in fact. Result: The robbers now dont come into your home to steal, they know they will be confronted; so they simply kill everyone and then steal.. and they come with MUCH heavier weaponry than the homeowner will ever have. Hell, before I left a home 10 blocks from where I lived was hit by machine gun and grenade fire before it was robbed. Luckily only the dogs were killed, the owners were out watching a movie in the theater.
Sad part is, we have much stricter gun ownership laws over there, its just that our police doesnt have any resources to control and enforce them... its nearly impossible to buy a gun legally. So you see, restriction is not the answer, and enforcement of those restrictions, when applied as in the case of the US where the police is effective, is not the solution either.
So from what I've seen, if people want a gun, they will get it. Black market, whatever. By denying gun ownership, in fact, by making it illegal to own guns you will make the average gun-totting crook, kid gangster, madman, etc, have a REAL hard time getting one... and keeping it if they ever get it.
The black market will be there yes... but tell me, how hard is it for you to get today, on the current black market, a thing that is strictly illegal? Say.. buy mustard gas or the components for it? Hmmm?
-
TAC,
your post was all run together so I won't quote it. I think I got most of the point of your post however.
1 Mexico does deal in guns. If you have cash you can buy anything you want in Mexico. half the time you can buy it directly from the Federales. Point in case. The car belonging to the Chief of Police in Tucson was stollen. Guess where it was found. Yep and a Federale (Mexican Federal Police Officer) was driving it in Nogales Sonora. The pistol that she stupidly left in the car was not recovered.
I have already made this point in other posts but it is still true.
We tried to legislate morality by banning alcohol in the US. It was going to make it a much better society since most of societies problems were thought to be alcohol related. Not only was the ban a dismal failure in creating a "better society" it created a massive number of federal felons who made alcohol, sold it, drank it and transported it. Flaunting the law became a national pastime. The government tried to eliminate it but couldn't even put a dent in the business. The secondary result was the explosive growth of organized crime. We really made a big improvement there. That was the black market in operation.
If you want to make a black market, ban the possession of something. It will be there shortly. A good example is the drug situation. If you have the desire to buy it you can get any number of banned substances from marijuana through heroin and methamphetimins. Crack is another popular banned item. It is against the law to have any amount of it but you can buy it just about anywhere.
As far as using a firearm in defense of property. Do not depend on hearsay from anyone as to the legality of it. In Arizona you are not authorized to use deadly force of any type to defend property. If you are in your home and the intruder is breaking in you must be in fear of your life before you can use deadly force. That means there is a higher level of caution required before you are justified in killing someone even in your home. Your home is still (at least for now) considered the last place of retreat you have. In other words the law says you cannot reasonably be expected to retreat away from your home from an intruder. It is a fuzzy situation but it is where you are literaly wth your back to the wall and can't go any further to get away.
As far as violent home invasions are concerned. They happened before now and are not a new development. It has been long known by criminals that a witness will have a distressing tendency to testify. No witnesses, no testimony. This type of person preys on whoever they want and whenever they want. It is up to you to deal with it as they can do want they came to do before the police can get there. They are not detered by the phone and 911 either.
I prefer to be in a position to be able to defend myself and my family. Burglars and home invaders do not magically disapear if guns are gone.
For anyone. If you don't like firearms, don't get one. You are not forced to get one. Just don't force your choice on anyone else.
Mav
-
<<The black market will be there yes... but tell me, how hard is it for you to get today, on the current black market, a thing that is strictly illegal? Say.. buy mustard gas or the components for it? Hmmm?>>
Not hard at all. It's friggin EASY!
Any joker can stroll into LA nowdays and pick up an AK-47 for 300 bucks. Know where they get it? Bulk freighters, the majority of them from the Middle East.
You won't truck bomb components of a Mustard Gas bomb across the Mexican line, but ship several vans with false floors. Problem solved. Let's see here- cost of the vans, plus the bomb components themselves, plus the modifications to the van.....that makes it about a cool mil. Any terrorist cell with enough malice and money could pull that off. A nuclear device would be tricker, but Russia I hear is having a 2 for 1 sale right now.
Bottom line is- it would take a serious effort, but a determined buyer is hardly ever turned down by prospective sellers.
As far as the "Columbia doesn't deal in guns" you're WAY off. Dark warehouse meetings are held every night. Cocaine is Columbia's biggest export, yes, but as an added bonus, the cartel just LOVES to trade weapons. Hell, half the time if they need some quick cash, they'll trade cocaine for an arsenal, then sell that arsenal for about a 100% profit. This is due to the fact that they get Cocaine at cost (damn near slave labor) and can afford to give it away.
<<So from what I've seen, if people want a gun, they will get it. Black market, whatever. By denying gun ownership, in fact, by making it illegal to own guns you will make the average gun-totting crook, kid gangster, madman, etc, have a REAL hard time getting one... and keeping it if they ever get it.>>
This DOES NOT WORK! Never has!
Besides, I thought you said everyone in your neighborhood is armed! Sounds like you restrictions aren't restrictive enough. Either that or your government never took the restrictions seriously. You say that your police force doesn't have the resources neccessary to enforce such restricions. Where does their money come from? In America, if there is a desperate need for it, it usually gets a Federal grant and toejam gets done. Nevermind that it throws us deeper in the whole, but more worthless projects have been performed in the aim of "improving America". Like the 12 million bucks spent on Brazillian alpine slides for the kiddies.
Look at the old west in American history. Basically everybody had a gun. For the most part it was pretty peaceful except for the occasional outlaw out to make a quick buck. And they roamed in gangs. They were usually stopped cold after a month or two. Every single one. Even Billy the Kid couldn't get away.
------------------
-Rebel
JG2 "Richtofen"
"You Rebel Scum"
-
"As far as the "Columbia doesn't deal in guns" you're WAY off. Dark warehouse meetings are held every night. Cocaine is Columbia's biggest export, yes, but as an added bonus, the cartel just LOVES to trade weapons. Hell, half the time if they need some quick cash, they'll trade cocaine for an arsenal, then sell that arsenal for about a 100% profit. This is due to the fact that they get Cocaine at cost (damn near slave labor) and can afford to give it away."
Bud, I AM from Colombia, and I KNOW what i'm talking about. That weapons do pass through the country as part of black market trade, yes.. so does everything else.. its the curse of being the only south american country with access to the atlantic and pacific ocean. That the cartel deal in weapons... extremely unlikely, they need all those guns "at home" to defend themselves from the Army and Police. Any guns you find in the US linked to any cartels you can bet your bellybutton they were ACQUIRED in the US. Its easier than shipping them across the border eh??
"Not hard at all. It's friggin EASY!"
Heh, ok go and try and make some nerve gas. You will find the feds on your bellybutton real quick. A Terrorist group is a VERY different thing from the average joe that bought a gun at the store. And guess who does almost all of the gun-involved murders? Average joe himself! That is my point. The Prohibition is a totally different scenario.. unless people start lobbying for their right to bear cracked, sharp ended whiskey bottles that is.
"This DOES NOT WORK! Never has!
Besides, I thought you said everyone in your neighborhood is armed! Sounds like you restrictions aren't restrictive enough. Either that or your government never took the restrictions seriously. You say that your police force doesn't have the resources neccessary to enforce such restricions. Where does their money come from? In America, if there is a desperate need for it, it usually gets a Federal grant and toejam gets done. Nevermind that it throws us deeper in the whole, but more worthless projects have been performed in the aim of "improving America". Like the 12 million bucks spent on Brazillian alpine slides for the kiddies."
You should not make assumptions about things you are completely ignorant about. We do have gun shops down there.. but the process, paperwork, restrictions and requirements to buy a gun, register it and acquire it legaly is what makes it damn impossible. Unlike a 3 day wait here in any US gun shop and filling out 3 pages and you get yourself a 9mm carbine or a shotgun or an assault rifle. Most people have their weapons because they were purchased before the gun control laws were passed... and most of us have weapons because the country has been in undeclared civil war for over 60 years. Our Police is a reaction force, not a preventive one... and since the police, arriving at a "weapons used to defend household" situation knows that under the circumstances, taking away the weapons from the household that had to use it to defend itself would in fact be more dangerous for the household and the community. IF the police comes at all that is.
The only thing keeping this from happening here is your law enforcment..and the fact that the U.S. HAS the resources and is not under constant internal war.
Is that how you want the U.S. to become?
REDNECKS for PRESIDENT! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
First of all, I never said anything about making nerve gas here in the US. I said ship it in parts concealed in trucks. It's happened. I've spoken with several law enforcement officers who have seen it.
Regarding Columbia- ya never said how long ago the laws were put in place. Sorry for the assumption. My bad.
Regarding your state of un-declared civil war-
Seems to me like the perfect market for some high grade weapons exportation. I've seen the busted shipments. I've seen assault rifles, grenades, the whole 9 yards. Hell I even saw a shipment of old M63 Stoners that someone got a hold of!
But the issue still stands- my opinion is that making them illegal would only escalate the situation, and make the problem worse.
After all, it's not so bad right now. Spout all the statistics you want, but the guns aren't the real problem. American society has been goin' downhill for years, and it's finally catchin up.
------------------
-Rebel
JG2 "Richtofen"
"You Rebel Scum"
-
Heh, I think all I can say to that is:
Control has been tried..failed. Restriction...tried and failed.
Only thing left to try is a complete ban.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Well, first of all, I wouldn't be one to brag about knowing someone who killed someone.
"We're stupid for wanting guns?" Where do you get that from? I didn't say that.
I rest my case with this question. Will more people die if guns are restricted? The answer is no.
Yes, I am from the "outside" looking in. I am Canadian. I believe that this gives me an unbiased point of view with more room to see things clearly. You've been brought up in a gun gung-ho society, I have not - Thank God.
The right to bear arms does was an addition made to the constution during a period of war with the British Empire. The British felt that anyone who wanted sovereinty was commiting treason and was therefore labeled a terrorist. The right to bear arms was an attempt to nullify the British's authority in the American colonies. This enviornment no longer exists, and the second ammendment is now stretched beyond comprehension to justify a major problem. Yes, a major problem.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of these United States is, with the entire bill of rights, unique in the history of human endeavors.
"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".
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is twofold: To gaurantee a well regulated militia to maintain a free state and to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms without infringment.
The founders determined that a populace with the capacity to arm itself was vital enough to be protected in the bill of rights.
Do not try to convince me that the amendment is only for the state and not the people. Do not try to convinve me that the amendment is outdated and no longer of use. Your position only serves to re-enforce my belief that I, as a citizen of Washington State and of these United States under the Federal Constitution, am gauranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
With regards to the numbers of deaths by fellow Americans due to accident or misuse: It is a matter that must be faced independant
of the right to keep and bear arms. the Constitution requires that it be done this way yet so many seem willing and ready to remove the 2nd amendment and barring that, ignore it. This will be a tragedy for all in ways most seem unable or unwilling to comprehend.
All other debate aside, let me warn all who wish to deny me a right which is gauranteed in the Constitution of the United States of America: if we (America) succeed in becoming nothing more than another asian, african or european socialist commonwealth, then the experiment beginning with "We the People" will be deemed a total abject failure by myself and all free men and I will take up arms, with tens of thousands of other free men, and restore the republic or die trying.
Trust me, this is the course we are on and it is leading us all to a terrible reckoning.
DO NOT ignore what I say. Find ways to improve the justice system so that we are protected from terrible, violent people, find lawful ways to reverse the wicked moral decline in our nation, find lawful ways to protect liberty and justice for all. Everyone knows the justice system is broken, that our nation is in abject moral decline, hell its in total reverse. Yet you want me, a lawful man, to destroy my guns? turn them over to *the police*?
Yeah right.
Yeager
-
Igloo,
Your post(s) simply suggest to me that you haven't done much research on the Constitution itself, the 2nd Amendment in particular and definitely not the men who wrote it.
Their opinions on being armed are available to study and the reasoning they used is as valid now as it was then.
I'm glad you love living in Canada.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh, and BTW, the Constitution was submitted for Ratification in 1787 and Ratification was completed on June 21, 1788. The Bill Of Rights, the Constitution's first ten amendments, became the law of the land upon ratification in 1791 .
Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in the Fall of 1781 is generally thought to be the end of the Revolutionary War In reality, minor battles between the British and the colonists continued for another two years. In February of 1783 George III issued his Proclamation of Cessation of Hostilities, culminating in the Peace Treaty of 1783.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-01-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is twofold: To gaurantee a well regulated militia to maintain a free state and to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms without infringment. yeager
Actually, Yeager, I think it's ONEFOLD. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The first phrase really doesn't figure into it that much.
From:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/vanalful.html (http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/vanalful.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.[2](p.1237)"
The postulation of a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" would make sense standing alone, however, even if it necessarily left some questions still to be settled.[3] It would make sense in just the same unforced way we understand even upon a first reading of the neighboring clause in the Bill of Rights, which uses the exact same phrase in describing something as "the right of the people" that "shall not be violated" (or "infringed"). Just as the Second Amendment declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed," so, too, the fourth Amendment declares:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ....[4]"
-
"They can take my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"
It makes me sick when I see someone misusing a perfectly good gun to kill with no meaning. Fix the problem of society not take away my guns tho. They will find they will have a really tough time getting mine if they ever decided I shouldn't own a gun anymore.
Ya know this great country was founded by a buncha twisted miltia members that were fed up with the way things were going. They appealed to the controlling government to fix things. They felt things weren't fixed so they got together with thier guns and took the country over. Were all the citizens of the same feeling? Nope, many of them supported England the whole way. What scares the government more than murders is the fact that this can be repeated and they don't like that idea.
I think we have it pretty good right now and think most of the miltias in the country are a bit off in the head but that is what started the revolutionary war anyway eh?
Should it be tougher to get a gun? I don't know.. the ones that use the guns to kill with are the punk gangers in the inner cities and they will get them regardless. I think that for general gun owners maybe classes on how to handle a gun, store a gun, shoot a gun before they can buy the gun would be a good thing. Taking away the gun won't cure the problem but working at it from the owners side can help the problem.
S!
Rocket
-
Although the revolutionary war ended in the late 18th century, it is obvious that hostile feelings between America and the British were still present. It was only a few decades after the revolutionary war that America and Britian went to war again in 1812. Loyalists were still around during this time and although the offical war was over, it was anything but peaceful.
If you fail to realise that guns in your society is a major problem, you're living in a bubble.
Canada and most western European countries have serious gun restrictions. Do you see them running around in a crime ridden society? No, you do not. Isn't funny how those countries with gun restrictions have some of the lowest crime rates in the world? Again, that must just be a coincidence, eh?
Let ask you this. Why do you need guns and the right to bear arms in this modern, somewhat civilized society? Other countries do not, why do you?
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
I dont want to live anywhere near Europe Igloo and from what I can tell talking and working with fleeing Canadians I dont want any part of that leftist socialist regime either. Nice folks Canadians, thats for sure....
Anyway, this thread is taking too long to load and Ive said all I care to.
Yeager
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
If you fail to realise that guns in your society is a major problem, you're living in a bubble.
It's always those EVIL, INANIMATE objects, isn't it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Two words:
Responsibility. Accountability.
Until US society understands those words and decides to apply them to PEOPLE instead of trying to blame inanimate objects, there will always be problems.
-
Rocket, Yeager and Toad,
This thread is too darn long. It seems to have collected a few folks who are very mistaken about human nature and the society that they don't live in. They look in and since they see something they don't understand, they fear it. Their response is to shun or try to ban it instead of facing their own subjective fears. They would rather have a feel good do nothing quick fix instead of realising that people who prey on other people are the problem. They think that by "getting rid of guns" that the society will magically transform itself. It frankly isn't going to happen. Instead of living their own lives, being responsible for themselves they feel they have the "right" to tell others how to live. They do not understand, they do not want to understand and will not be dissuaded from their position.
Further posting on this issue is a waste of time and taking way too much time away from playing AH.
Igloo just do me a big favor, stay up there in Canada. Worry about your own society and be responsible for your own actions. I for one am very happy you are not a citizen and have no say in American politics. You are close to this country physically but are miles ansd miles away from understanding this country and the concept of freedom of choice.
Mav
-
What I find absolutly halarious is that americans still believe they are the only free country in the world with a constitution. Read a book please.
I'm not saying that banning guns will fix your society. I said putting restrictions on them will serve as a step in the right direction. I would happily not invlove myself in american politcs and culture, but I don't have a choice because it is constantly shoved down our throat.
When you understand your own constitution, you will not make such obviously ignorant (that means uneducated) remarks like implying your country is the only one in the world with the freedom of choice. Complete arrogance is one thing the world is sick of when it comes to americans, and you're proving that point perfectly. The American colonies were not "freed". The British did not hold you captive, you were already FREE, you already had rights as a citizen of the British Empire. All the revolution did was free you from British taxes and give you soverenty, so get off the freedom kick.
Arrogance without education is a dangerous combination that has been manifested dozens of times in these past two years in your "utopian" country. Don't just take my word for it, check in on CNN every other week to see a school shooting. Case in point - period.
Time to wake up, pop that bubble and join the 21st century with the rest of the free world. There is no need for a citizens of a 1st world country to stock pile guns. The USA is the ONLY 1st world country in the world to have such flimsy regulations relating to guns. "Coincidently" the USA is also the most crime ridden 1st world nation on this planet. Is this connection a mere coincidence?
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
I would happily not invlove myself in american politcs and culture, but I don't have a choice because it is constantly shoved down our throat....
Complete arrogance is one thing the world is sick of when it comes to americans,
Well, you guys do have on/off switches and channel selection devices on your radios and TV's don't you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
How do you figure that you "don't have a choice?" Or is that that you don't WANT choice? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Just YOUR way?
Also, I wonder if it's our complete arrogance or just the fact that we don't agree with the "life as a sheep is GREAT!" philosophy.
Or maybe it's the complete arrogance of not caring what the busybody neighbors think that bothers you so much. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Or maybe, Toad, it is your arrogance talking when you call anyone country that doesn't supprort guns for a country of "sheep".
That's rich coming from the Christian nation of the US, God's own country.
BAAAAAAAH. BAAAAAAH. (http://www.geocities.com/stsantasatan/crucified.gif)
Heheheh. Gotta live up to my nick, Satan Claus (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Note: this is a troll. No, not one of them ugly things the Norwegians like to hump, but a different troll. If this is offensive to you, you probably need to be exposed mre to life and the *really* offensive things out there. Now go away. Thank you.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://voices.vossnet.co.uk/t/toles/9jg54.gif)
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 10-05-2000).]
-
Toad, we really couldn't care what americans think about Canada. But funniest, and saddest part about it all, is that 50% of americans think the capital of Canada is Toronto. Education within your own borders and nothing more. That's what is annoying.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by leonid:
- The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.
- The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
[/b]
I haven't read this entire thread, but this in particular jumped at me.
I've had guns all my life. My friends have had guns all thier lives. None of our guns have been used in a homicide in the home. I'd love to see how they came by this statistic, as it sounds awfully fishy and like alot of anti-gun propaganda.
The risk of suicide is increased 5 times huh?
roadkillE
How that statistic should read is:
When someone is suicidal, if there is a gun in the house they are 5times more likely to use the gun than another means (ie: razor blades/pills). I've never felt the urge to kill myself because I had a gun in my house. I seriously doubt anyone else has felt the urge to kill themselves just because a gun is in the house.
I really love how anti-gun advocates twist numbers around to suit themselves.
Now quit wasting time and go fix traffic deaths, they kill more than guns do.
Like Rip said, fix society first, not the inanimate objects people use.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Or maybe, Toad, it is your arrogance talking when you call anyone country that doesn't supprort guns for a country of "sheep".
Nah, guns aren't my criteria for determining a "country of sheep".
It's whether or not the people allow their government to run their lives, do their thinking for them and redistribute most of their income.
Was that a Danish "baaah" I just heard up there?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Igloo, canadians "really couldn't care what Americans think about canada?
Then we really are exactly alike, only mirror reversed! Wow!
I've never seen the stats on where Americans think the capital of canada is located, but I'm sure you can provide them.
But, hey, if our standards of education annoy you......why don't you just quit worrying about us? We seem to be getting along just fine without your leadership and worry anyhow. No point in getting all annoyed, is there?
I assure you, we don't worry about canadians. Even when they flock down to Florida and act like rude touristas. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)