Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrBill on October 09, 2002, 08:49:56 AM
-
a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0,171. (US Dept.of Health & Human Services)
a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.
As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.
-
Did you see the report on TV last night that the number of overweight people has ballooned to 59,000,000 Americans? That's 1 in 5 people!
OUTLAW SPOONS, KNIVES AND FORKS[/SIZE] THEY are the reason that people are fat! Never mind the social behavior, BAN THE SILVER NOW!
-
worse.... those stats include suicide and hitting the wrong person in a drive by shooting as "accidental".
lazs
-
we wouldn't have the sniper problem in MD/DC area if we had stricter gun laws
-
I love the bumper sticker:
TED KENNEDYS CAR HAS KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN MY GUN
-
Originally posted by hawk220
I love the bumper sticker:
TED KENNEDYS CAR HAS KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN MY GUN
Oh MAN! Where do I get one?
-
as a citizen of the united states, i am willing to accept higher risks of accidental or deliberate slaying in order to protect my right to own a weapon.
its an acceptable risk i am willing to take. why should we limit the freedom of honest, decent gun owners, because some whacko decides to snipe people.
seems a bit reactionary to me...
-
Eaglers post was tongue in cheek. ;)
-
doesn't the DC area have the strictest gun laws in the nation?
-
Hawk, 2nd only to NYC. Guess who has the most homocides a year? :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Eaglers post was tongue in cheek. ;)
not to good at fishing am I :)
-
Dang, sorry! Should have known that was your hole, instead, I coming tripping over your tackle box, tangle my boots up in your line, and snap it. :(
-
National homicide rates involving firearms posted by the FBI always include, in addition to the actual murders, all justifiable homicides, whether committed by the police or by law-abiding citizens defending home and family. The statistics posted about accidental killings of children include anyone below the age of 21, which takes in all the street punks killed by rival gangs. The actual rate of accidental firearms deaths by children is less than one a day.
Drunks kill far more children on the highways.
Regards, Shuckins
-
uh huh.
-
Wow TG, do you realize how many lives would have been saved if the patriots had been armed like that? Them thar lobster backs woodnt a lasted a month. :D
-
MT,
Very clever! But I've seen the cartoon before.
Why don't you read what the Founding Fathers pictured above actually said about the right to bear arms. It might take some digging, but when you find their writings I can promise you they will be a revelation! You might even find it on Google.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Do a search on ".223 caliber" (the round used by the Maryland/WashingtonDC sniper) on Yahoo and see what types of guns fire that round.
AR-15, various models of AKs, some Romanian and Chinese assault rifles. Sold for hunting and general shooting.
I guess the days of bolt-action hunting rifles is over.
-
Gofaster, .223 caliber?
I was hearing reports on Saturday and Sunday that the sniper was using a high powered rifle...
Varment ammunition I wouldn't classified as high powered.. especially not enough to blow a huge sucking chest wound or someone's face clean off...
-SW
-
SW, it is a .223
-
M-16 uses roughly a close diameter, does it not? Anyway, think velocity, not size.
-
Not to mention projectile type.
.223 with military ball is bad juju.
.223 with expaning hunting bullets is REALLY BAD juju when it hits a person.
And let's see... a quick search turned up these manufacturers of bolt action .223 rifles:
Cooper Arms
Remington (available in the LTR Light Tactical Rifle no less)
Ruger
Browning
Savage
Winchester
Just to name a few.
-
223 cal is 5.56 mm. Very high velocity. Much larger round that a 22 cal.
This is eighter a wako, asemetrical terrorist, or someone hiding a homicide. Shoot one person, the investigation focuses on that persons associates. Shoot several in the same manner and the investigation broadens significantly. The focus on homicide motive is lost.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
223 cal is 5.56 mm. Very high velocity. Much larger round that a 22 cal.
Not true.
The .223 is .224 diameter. The .22 is .224 diameter as used in jacketed bullet design for several calibers, or I should say cartidges. The .224 is also used in smaller cartridge cases than the .223 shell but has several larger cases and higher velocity than the .223. The .222 was the parent of the .223. The 5.56mm is the same as the .222 with a very slight increase in size of the case. This meant it could be produced quickly as a "new" round with little time lost for actual development in loading as the .222 data was almost identical. Velocity is almost identical between them. The largest difference is in the case neck dimensions as te .222 has a longer neck than the .223 or 5.56mm NATO round. The 5.56 is only .060 inches longer than the parent .222 case.
The .223 and .222 use bullets from about 40 grains (there are 7,000 grains in a pound) to 70 grains or so. There might be even heavier ones but they lose efficiency rapidly as they get heavier. There is only so much powder in th case and the larger bullets take up that case capacity.
The .22 longrifle or rimfire is a low powered round with a 30 to 45 grain lead projectile. Nominal velocity is about 800 to 1,200 FPS. This is less than the base .222 or .223 cartridges in normal loadings. It is also loaded quite low for specialty rounds like the .22 shot or CB cap with velocities down in the range of a BB gun. (450 to 800 fps).
-
MT: Their fingers are on the triggers! & Mr. Washington needs to be taught muzzle discipline.
I heard on the CBS news one of the reporters describe the round as a "killing machine." The reporter also stood out on a big grass field with markers for 100, 200 up to about 500 yards, and said the round can kill out to 500 yards or "5 football fields." Ok... I think I remember .22 rimfire (you know, the dinky little round they use in Olympic Biathlon, etc.) had a warning on the box that the round is lethal up to a mile also. It's pretty ludicrous to me to attempt to villify a round.
Threads on gun forums mentioning "Black Hawk Down" & "5.56mm" or "SS109" are usually about how our guys on the ground were noticing how ineffective their rounds were when hitting bad guys. It boiled down to short barreled CAR-15's and engaging targets past 100-150 yds or so. The FMJ rounds that the military must use does not fragment below a certain velocity. But since these guys/guy are allegedly using hunting rifles and have no restrictions on ammunition type...
I don't remember if this was fact or fiction but I heard something about using microphone-type sensors to detect the direction of a gunshot. However in an urban setting with echoes and reverb, I guess it wouldn't help much.
I'm affraid to think about what the backlash will be. I hope you folks with scoped hunting rifles have enough scopes and ammunition for a while.
Saw a rumor somewhere about it being possibly two latin males. Then someone links it to Abu Sayaff since latin could mean Filipino. Crazy stuff here, folks are scared and very few have a clue on who/why. I hope whoever it is gets taken out soon.
For those that live there, stay safe.
mauser
-
ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- Evidence retrieved from the site of the most recent sniper shooting in the Washington, D.C., area -- including a Tarot card inscribed with the message "Dear Policeman: I am God" -- has been taken to an FBI lab for analysis, law enforcement sources said Wednesday.
Things just keeps getting stranger....
EDIT: That tarot card, BTW, is the "Death" one.
-SW
-
I've heard the bullet is indeed a .22 caliber. However, that does not mean that it has to be a .223. Other cartridges that use a .22 bullet are:
22 Hornet
218 Bee
221 Remington Fireball
222 Remington
222 Remington Magnum
223 Remington In Progressively Shorter Barrels
223 Remington
223 Remington Factory Ammo V Reloads
Heavy Bullets In The 223 Remington
223 Ackley Improved
22 PPC USA
22 BR Remington
224 Weatherby
22-250 Remington
22-250 Ackley Improved
5.6 x 57 RWS
220 Swift
22-243 Middlestead
22-6MM Remington
BTW, the ballistics for these and most other common hunting cartridges can be found here: http://www.accuratereloading.com/reload.html
Also, your standard .223 is a 50 grain bullet at roughly 3000 fps.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we wouldn't have the sniper problem in MD/DC area if we had stricter gun laws
C|N>K
What the heck have YOU been smoking?
-
223 is the civillian version of the 5.56mm NATO
As has been stated, it's 22 caliber. The 243 is also 22 caliber, but it uses a necked 308 (7.62mm NATO) cartredge, and is significantly more powerful. A 22 is not just a 22.
BTW, I seem to recall the most deadly round in the US is typically the 22LR, a tiny beast with under 100fp of muzzle energy (typically) that people underestimate.
I've actually been shopping for a long rifle (ie something I can use to hit quarters out at 800 meters) lately. Back in the olden days when I wore a uniform I used to do things like that with the mcmillian (now Harris) 86. Before all this stuff in DC started happening I thought it would be fun to do it again.
Now that all this stuff is going on in DC I still think it would be fun to do that again.
-
Originally posted by Puck
C|N>K
What the heck have YOU been smoking?
caught another one ... thx :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
caught another one ... thx :)
Glad to oblige. The C|N>K happened before I caught it, so I figured you deserved the recognition :)
-----
C == COFFEE
N == NOSE
K == KEYBOARD
COFFEE | NOSE > KEYBOARD
Coffee piped through NOSE and redirected to KEYBOARD for the geek challened among you :)
-
The killer had to be using a small-caliber rifle such as a .223. The report from a large caliber rifle would instantly pinpoint his location. He may be using a military rifle with a suppressor to hide the muzzle flash and disperse the report. That would not work with a .308 or larger caliber. You can't hide their muzzle blast.
The authorities may be dealing with a terrorist, because if the above observations turn out to be true, he's probably using a military weapon.
Regards, Shuckins
-
studys show that people habving to read small text on a computer screen smaller that 17 inches causes incredable eye problems
BAN ALL SMALL SCREENS NOW MAKE SMALLEST BE 19 INCHES
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
The killer had to be using a small-caliber rifle such as a .223. The report from a large caliber rifle would instantly pinpoint his location. He may be using a military rifle with a suppressor to hide the muzzle flash and disperse the report. That would not work with a .308 or larger caliber. You can't hide their muzzle blast.
Actually...
If you do your shooting from far enough away the report doesn't give much at all, particularly in an area where the echo will bounce the noise all over the place or the local flora disperses it. You can pretty much ignore muzzle flash unless you're looking right at him.
Even when you've got a bunch of guys who are in the business it can take quite a while to spot a good shooter, and that's when the shooter is after THEM. Given enough rounds from the same spot he'll get found; this guy takes his shot and moves.
Unless he starts screwing up he's going to be a real pain to catch. I like it better when the sniper sits in a clock tower. Much easier to deal with.
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
The killer had to be using a small-caliber rifle such as a .223. The report from a large caliber rifle would instantly pinpoint his location. He may be using a military rifle with a suppressor to hide the muzzle flash and disperse the report. That would not work with a .308 or larger caliber. You can't hide their muzzle blast.
The authorities may be dealing with a terrorist, because if the above observations turn out to be true, he's probably using a military weapon.
Regards, Shuckins
A .223 cal rifle makes a report that is incredibly loud. The velocity of that round exceeds the speed of sound many times over resulting in a very loud crack.
back to the fun, excuse this interlude:)
-
any number of 223 and 22 calibre rifles and even pistols can be found in single shot, bolt action or semi auto configuration.
Every time an anti gun guy opens his mouth out comes a bunch of ill informed crap. You would think they would be smart enough to not bring up their lack of knowledge about firearms. Point is tho.... If they knew anything about firearms they wouldn't be anti gun... go figure.
To me and anyone else who can read.... the 2nd amendment isn't about firearm type and it certainly isn't about the righ to hunt.
The cartoon was accurate in one way. All of the people portrayed owned state of the art military firearms.
lazs
-
oh.. ammo.. you are correct. in the open or near it.. a 223 going off is very loud. in a city with a lot of bustle and concrete buildings to echo off.... the report is often not even associated with gunfire to most folks. The echos off buildings make direction identification difficult also.
line from a movie... "way of the gun" that I got a kick out of... 'Ok, one or two shots is a backfire.... 3 is gunfire."
lazs
-
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Mohandas Ghandi 1927
-
---------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
National homicide rates involving firearms posted by the FBI always include, in addition to the actual murders, all justifiable homicides,
---------------------------------------------------
:D Justifiable homicides. "He needed killing...."
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Mohandas Ghandi 1927
Urban legend.
-
Mohandas Ghandi was a urban legand ???
-
Originally posted by Puck
Urban legend.
Here is a bigger piece of the quote, with a bibliography:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to the Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."
-Mahatma Gandhi, Autobiography. Translated from the Gujarati by Mahadev Desai. Public Affairs Press, Washington, D.C. 1948.
For an urban legend, it sure is a well documented one.
;)
-
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
N.B.: This quote refers to the British disarmament of the Indian Army. Gandhi never advocated the individual right to bear arms.
-Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography
:p :p :p :p :p
-
I recall we used .22 rounds in the M16 at basic training at Lackland in 79, probably to conserve the regular stuff. Barrel was the same, I think they converted the bolt and the magazine.
Also I recall there used to be sabot rounds for the 30.06 in .22 and .25 calibers? for varmit hunting.
Oh and Eagler, your bait was fine, you just didnt cast out far enough and maybe use a little more weight, so the bait doesn't float near the surface.
And Rip needs to be a little more careful when coming up to the fishing hole, use a flashlight or something.
AirScrew
-
Ghandi was referring to the arms acts of 1857 and 1878
Arms act of 1857 was passed in reaction to an uprizing of the Indian citizenry with a view to disarming the people. The property of those who were suspected of having participated in the rising was confiscated.
In the Nagpur area chieftains, like Navab Quadir Alikhan and a number of petty Zamindars came to be deprived of their property on the suspicion that they had a hand in the revolt.
The arms act of 1878 introduced licensing of firearms throughout India and imposed heavy import duty. Penalties for the breach of this Act were enforced very stringently.
-
""""Arms act of 1857 was passed in reaction to an uprizing of the Indian citizenry with a view to disarming the people. The property of those who were suspected of having participated in the rising was confiscated. """""'
yeah , the english learned what happens when the people you try to oppress have guns .......american revolution, 1776
44MAG
-
We need a "war on guns" just like our "war on drugs" in order to prevent events like the sniper killings.
-
Funny how the gun-toters always like to point out the so called failings of the municipalities which have actually wisened up and outlawed these killing devices. They say... "see, they have X number of laws, banned guns altogether and still they have gun crime." Well, until all of the USA wises up and eliminates private gun ownership there will always be an avenue for criminals to obtain them. There is no need in this modern day and age for citizens to own guns, none. Its not like we can't drive 10 minutes in any direction and find a shopping center with plenty of food and last time I checked our so called "Native Americans" or rather "American Kurds" were tucked away nicely in their US Gov't "reservations".
What we need is a "noodle enlargement for weapons" program so those 3" donuted NRA members can quit trying to compensate and move on with their pathetic lives and our children can live without fear of getting shot walking into school.
Lonz
-
My dad has a lovely Belgium made Browning .22 pump action (looks like a miniturised pump action shotgun). A very quiet, accurate rifle. He also had a friend who had a .22 bolt action fitted with a scope and a silencer, once again very accurate.
The scoped silenced .22 was nasty. It was small, very portable, and the low velocity (subsonic) rounds did a lot of damage (a lower velocity round tends to do more damage if you hit them right). Both my father and this guy were involved in the security business and got a lot of international publications (corporate, not the stuff you pick up off the shelf) and most of the security briefs were about .22 calibre weapons being the biggest dangers.
I got to play with M-16s in air cadets for a bit, and SLR's. The SLR L1A1 was like a small cannon. The M-16 (.223) wasn't much louder than a .22LR.
I'd agree its either someone covering up a homocide, or Al Qaeda testing a new method of terrorism out.
If its the latter, $5 says the DC shottings stop and this guy reappears somewhere on the other side of the states a month later.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hawk, 2nd only to NYC. Guess who has the most homocides a year? :D
San Francisco???
-
why is DmdBT/lonz bragging about his 3" p***** in a gun control thread?, and yes "save the children""body bags""assualt rifles"cop killer bullets"'save social security""save the enviorment""peace now" "hell no , we wont go"etc etc etc
44MAG
PS i forgot "peace in our time"
PPS i do agree however that children and liberals should not have guns , they will just put their eye out, guns should only be owned by adults.
-
Originally posted by DmdBT
Well, until all of the USA wises up and eliminates private gun ownership there will always be an avenue for criminals to obtain them. There is no need in this modern day and age for citizens to own guns, none.
Lonz
This dog's owner never did anything to you, why can't he keep his guns and continue to enjoy hunting? By the way, hunters and fishermen pay an overwhelming amount of the costs for wildlife conservation, for game and non-game species in the US.
-
The problem (from the outside looking in) in the US is the ease at buying guns and the range of weapons available.
In NZ its pretty straightforward. You don't need automatic weapons or pistols. You have to be licensed, and there are basic gun safety tests you are required to pass. Police also do a background check, and you have to provide evidence of a safe lockup (ie lockable cabinet) where the weapon and ammo will be stored.
Thus we have happy hunters/gun owners and relatively little firearms crimes (they still occur, but I doubt gunlaws would curb the individual events).
-
Originally posted by DmdBT
There is no need in this modern day and age for citizens to own guns, none.
I feel the same way about cars. No need for them. Bicycles or public transportation is the only way to go. Farmers can use horse-drawn carts.
It would be nice to be able to get from my house to the market without nearly getting run over by some pathetic moron with a 3 inch noodle who overcompensates with a big car.
I mean, really. Has anyone seen the highway fatality statistics? I was a street medic (off an on) for close to 20 years, and if you look back over my run reports automobiles far and away caused more trauma than guns. Much of this was inner-city, so its not like there weren't a few thousand illegal guns around. It was the "legal" cars that scared me.
Some people just have no clue. I can't understand why they don't get it.
-
Originally posted by DmdBT
What we need is a "noodle enlargement for weapons" program so those 3" donuted NRA members can quit trying to compensate and move on with their pathetic lives and our children can live without fear of getting shot walking into school.
Lonz
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." -- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952) :D
-
How ya feel now son?
"A lack of fear of weapons shows what is often referred to as Darwinian Theory at Work" - Vulcan 2003.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." -- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952) :D
-
but vulcan , you live in NZ , you are not allowed to have a 45 ,
YOU ARE UNDER ARREST, GET ON THE GROUND MOVE MOVE
-
<>
ahh the fishees
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we wouldn't have the sniper problem in MD/DC area if we had stricter gun laws
roadkill
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
How ya feel now son?
"A lack of fear of weapons shows what is often referred to as Darwinian Theory at Work" - Vulcan 2003.
I've been shot at with a .22 rifle, and a .32 handgun, had a Ought-6 pulled on me, and had an unidentified handgun flashed at me from under a coat. Yet I still believe in the right to bear arms. Nothing will make you feel more helpless than being at the business end of a weapon, and nothing will inspire you more to be armed yourself after such an incident. Oops, add to that a Shotgun held at me as another guy beat the crap outta me (They needed that weapon, or I'd have whooped both their asses.)
-
The gun laws were pretty strict in Europe during the late 1930s and early 1940s. Any private citizen who didn't turn in their private firearms or was caught with one was arrested and shot.
Those were modern times, weren't they? Those people had absolutely no reason to need one. They should have obeyed the law and trusted their governments to respect their rights. Shouldn't they?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Dingbat
roadkill
caught another catfish :)
stinkbait works good ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
caught another catfish :)
stinkbait works good ...
LOL, I hadn't had my coffee yet and such a moronic statement like that pisses me off.
I live in the DC Metro Area, I'm disturbed about this nut case too. But anyone with common sense would realize, that guns aren't the problem it's the nutcases. Did an AR-15 wake up one morning and say "i'm gonna make my owner go out and kill people this morning"? I believe that I have the right to carry a weapon, I believe I have the right to shoot to death some one who threatens My family or myself with bodily harm or worse. I can kill you with a car, aeroplane, brick, knife, or a GD spork for pete's sake. I don't see people trying to outlaw cars and eating utensils.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I've been shot at with a .22 rifle, and a .32 handgun, had a Ought-6 pulled on me, and had an unidentified handgun flashed at me from under a coat.
Maybe your wife wouldn't be so temperamental if you spent less time on the computer.
-
NZ?? ya gotta be kidding... no drivebys in the NZ ghetto's? How do you stop the PCP filled burgler with the 36" crowbar in your town? The street gangs must be well behaved huh?
The U.S. is a big, bad place filled with very desperate (and sometimes just insane) people. they will kill you with anything they can get their hands on and they wouldn't care a whit that guns were "illegal". They spend time in gladiator acadamies where they work out 4 hours a day and learn new ways to commit unsuccessfull crime.
in the U.S. the amount of people killed by accidental shooting is miniscule. The amount of crimes stopped...yes..... prevented from happening.... is, the the conservative FBI estimate, 1 million a year.
but that asside. I believe that the government knowing we are armed is the whole point of the 2nd. Nothing has convinced me that the govenment is my buddy now. That they are looking out for my best interest. Nothing has convinced me that they can protect me and mine or that it is not my duty to do so.
lazs
-
well , at least there's one thing lazs and i agree on, gun ownership
44MAG
-
44 mag... we agree on everything. you simply haven't thought it out well enough yet.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
---snip--- I believe that the government knowing we are armed is the whole point of the 2nd. ---snip---
This may be the reason you favor the 2nd Amendment, but it is hardly the reason that it was included in the Constitution.
BTW, I agree that gun ownership should remain legal.
-
the problem with gun control, as I see it, is recoil. I mean, if you're inexperienced with a particular firearm, you aren't fully aware of what you are getting. I mean how can you control the damn thing if it's bucking and kicking all over the damned place?
In order for real gun control to work, we all need to practice more. Or maybe buy lasers.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
the problem with gun control, as I see it, is recoil. I mean, if you're inexperienced with a particular firearm, you aren't fully aware of what you are getting. I mean how can you control the damn thing if it's bucking and kicking all over the damned place?
In order for real gun control to work, we all need to practice more. Or maybe buy lasers.
-Sikboy
So, another spin on the old saying "Gun control means being able to hit your target" ?
-
Pretty much.
I'm going on Vacation tomorrow morning, and so today feels like the last day of elementary school to me. I'm so excited (haven't had a real vacation in 7 years :eek: ) that the day is dragging along.
-Sikboy
-
Have fun on Vaca! (Say, is it just me, or does it seem like that clock is moving slower? :D )
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Have fun on Vaca! (Say, is it just me, or does it seem like that clock is moving slower? :D )
Thanks... I think my clock is broken.... uggg. Ok, I'm going to get lunch, that'll kill 20 minutes.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by NUKE
We need a "war on guns" just like our "war on drugs" in order to prevent events like the sniper killings.
This has to be bait. With that in mind, I'm hooked!
WOD has been fought for 30 years, no victory in sight.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
This has to be bait. With that in mind, I'm hooked!
WOG has been fought for 30 years, no victory in sight.
HAS to be bait.
After all, since the WAR ON DRUGS there aren't anymore illicit drugs in the United States. I have to assume a war on guns would be at least as successful.
-
According to news reports this morning from Maryland authorities, eye witness accounts indicate that there may be two people involved in the shootings. They are operating out of a white mini-van. That means there may be two crazies involved, or else we may have a professional sniper with a driver/spotter. If the latter case proves to be true, it may be a team of terrorists.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Plenty of crazies in the beltway area. Most have a big "D" on their license plate.
-
MT... the 2nd was most certainly was put there so that we would have a defense over tyranny. Even a cursory glance at the federalist papers on the subject would show you that.
so what do you think it was there for..... A concession to "Ducks Unlimited"?
lazs
-
Oh... and this DC thing proves my theory that mini vans are the root cause of all that is wrong in America today.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Plenty of crazies in the beltway area. Most have a big "D" on their license plate.
Diplomat? :)
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Diplomat? :)
-SW
Neg, "Democrat" )
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT... the 2nd was most certainly was put there so that we would have a defense over tyranny. Even a cursory glance at the federalist papers on the subject would show you that.
so what do you think it was there for..... A concession to "Ducks Unlimited"?
lazs
Ducks unlimited... lol good one.
No, I think it was included because the founders saw the necessity for a well regulated militia as a defense against the tyranny of the Crown. Your spin is close to the mark, but not quite the same thing.
-
MT... with all due respect.... What you "think" is wrong. The founders recognized that tyranny in all it's forms could only be defeated by the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
just curious tho ... what good would an unarmed militia be?
are you implying that the 2nd was put there so that the government could hand out guns to a "militia" if the crown ever attacked us again?
lazs
-
In Presser vs. Illinois the Supreme Court stated that "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the militia. "
The 2nd Amendment reads as follows:
"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."
1. It doesn't say "guns" or even "firearms." It says "arms." Although guns are, in fact, arms, not all arms are guns. So there is no specific guarantee that an individual has the right to own or brandish a firearm...just a weapon of some sort.
2. Oh yeah, it doesn't guarantee the rights of individuals at all. It guarantees the "right of THE PEOPLE," i.e. the general populace or citizenry.
3. You didn't skip over the clause in the beginning that qualifies those rights did you? That's the part that says that the reason THE PEOPLE should be ARMED is so that the MILITIA can provide for the SECURITY of a FREE STATE. How many of you gun owners out there are members of the militia?
4. Don't forget that it also says you militia members are supposed to be "well regulated," too.
The 2nd Amendment simply ensures that the Armed Forces, the National Guard and your local Police Department are able to have the necessary weapons to train and maintain peace in your country and community. It does not give you the right to defend your own house or person through armed violence. It also does not guarantee you the right to have your own assault rifle.
-
How why do those stats disturb me?
-
BTW, Presser v. Illinios is an 1886 case. A tad bit dated shall we say.
From the United States v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001:
7. Analysis
The history we have recounted largely speaks for itself. We briefly summarize. The Anti-Federalists desired a bill of rights, express provision for increased state power over the militia, and a meaningful express limitation of the power of the federal government to maintain a standing army. These issues were somewhat interrelated. The prospect of federal power to render the militia useless and to maintain a large standing army combined with the absence of any specific guarantees of individual liberty frightened Anti-Federalists. But the Anti-Federalist complaint that resonated best with the people at large was the lack of a bill of rights.
In mid-1788 the Constitution was ratified unchanged and in the spring of 1789 the Federalists gained control of both houses of the First Congress. Hard-core Anti-Federalists persisted in all three demands, but more moderate Anti-Federalists and the people at large were primarily focused on securing a bill of rights. Most Federalists were not really averse to a bill of rights, but, like James Madison himself, had been forced to oppose any modifications to the Constitution since it could only be ratified unchanged. The Federalists wanted to please the Anti-Federalists as much as possible without fundamentally altering the balance of federal-state power. James Madison plainly stated this goal when he submitted his proposed amendments to the House.
Given the political dynamic of the day, the wording of the Second Amendment is exactly what would have been expected. The Federalists had no qualms with recognizing the individual right of all Americans to keep and bear arms. In fact, as we have documented, one of the Federalists' favorite 1787-88 talking points on the standing army and federal power over the militia issues was to remind the Anti-Federalists that the American people were armed and hence could not possibly be placed in danger by a federal standing army or federal control over the militia. The Second Amendment's preamble represents a successful attempt, by the Federalists, to further pacify moderate Anti-Federalists without actually conceding any additional ground, i.e. without limiting the power of the federal government to maintain a standing army or increasing the power of the states over the militia.
This is not to say that the Second Amendment's preamble was not appropriate or is in any way marginal or lacking in true significance. Quite the contrary. Absent a citizenry generally keeping and bearing their own private arms, a militia as it was then thought of could not meaningfully exist. As pointed out by Thomas Cooley, the right of individual Americans to keep, carry, and acquaint themselves with firearms does indeed promote a well-regulated militia by fostering the development of a pool of firearms-familiar citizens that could be called upon to serve in the militia. While standing armies are not mentioned in the preamble, history shows that the reason a well-regulated militia was declared necessary to the security of a free state was because such a militia would greatly reduce the need for a standing army. Thus, the Second Amendment dealt directly with one of the Anti-Federalists' concerns and indirectly addressed the other two. While the hard-core Anti-Federalists recognized that the Second Amendment did not assure a well-regulated militia or curtail the federal government's power to maintain a large standing army, they did not control either branch of Congress (or the presidency) and had to be content with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Finally, the many newspaper articles and personal letters cited indicate that, at the time, Americans viewed the Second Amendment as applying to individuals. This is confirmed by the First Congress's rejection of amendments that would have directly and explicitly addressed the Anti-Federalists' standing army and power over the militia concerns.
We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty.(60) All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.
We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.
E. Second Amendment protects individual rights
We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.
Here is the link to the whole case: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
-
ok... the 2nd says that a certain "right" the right of the people of the united states shall not be infringed upon. that "right" is the right to "keep and bear arms".. If the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then any 'arm' falls under it's protection. Why should this right not be infringed? why... "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
so far as "well regulated"... well that would of course be the most efficient but it is far from mandatory in the 2nd just desirable.
and who is the militia? why it is as the court says... "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the militia. " This boils down to ......
any citizen shall not have his right to bear the firearm of his choice taken from him.
More about this is explained in the federalist papers. especialy in 46 and 26 numbers 46 and 26 best describe what I was saying about the 2nd being about defending from tyranny from both without and within.
In 46, madison says "the advantage the Americans possess" (under the proposed constitution) with the circumstances in "several kingdoms of europe (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms"
in 26 (Caps mine)..... "but if circumstances should at any time oblige the govenment to form an army of any magnitude THAT ARMY CAN NEVER BE FORMIDABLE TO THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE while a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in disipline and the use of arms, WHO STAND READY TO DEFEND THEIR OWN RIGHTS AND THOSE OF THEIR FELLOW-CITIZENS. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, AND THE BEST POSSIBLE SECURITY AGAINST IT, IF IT SHOULD EXIST.
it seems apparent that a well trained militia was desied simply because the better trained it was the more use it would be against tyranny from both within or without. Regardless.... it is apparent that the framers understood the danger an unarmed "people" were in from their own standing army (government). Throughout the Federalist papers it is also apparent that the militia should empahtically NOT be regulated by the federal government.
lazs
-
Shouldn't people have the right to keep and bear all types of arms? As the constitution viewed the right in a military context (a militia, and designed to protect liberty against the army), shouldn't the citizens have the right to be as well armed as that army?
Machine guns? Rocket launchers, grenades? Anti aircraft weapons? Nuclear weapons?
As Waco proved, the current firepower available to citizens isn't enough to protect them against (quasi)military forces of the government.
-
nash... I see no problem with citizens owning any type of weapon except.... Storage. If the weapon (rockets, nukes, explosives etc..) constitutes a reasonable hazard to fellow citizens.. By that... If a fire in your house can take out the block or cause nuclear hazard... well.... you can't keep it there.
as to machine guns.... Name ONE instance in the last 60 years where a legal machine gun was used to harm someone. they are legal to own even today. Does the person who is killed care what type of weapon did it? Shouldn't the crime be the important thing?
lazs
-
Sorry MT but I must say you are waaaay out in left field on that one and just plain ignorant. now be a good little socialist and go study your communist manifesto.
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." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784).
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788).
"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
"…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers
-------------------
The 2nd Amendment simply ensures that the Armed Forces, the National Guard and your local Police Department are able to have the necessary weapons to train and maintain peace in your country and community. It does not give you the right to defend your own house or person through armed violence. It also does not guarantee you the right to have your own assault rifle.
Where in the heck does it say Armed Forces, National Guard and local PD in the second amendment? It says people that means me you them us! How can a democracy exsist if a governemnt doesn't fear the people. You may have some of the 'rights' such as freedom to whine squeak and moan but you obviously have no idea what it takes to hold on to them.
-
BTW, Presser v. Illinios is an 1886 case. A tad bit dated shall we say.
From the United States v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001: snip
More from that link:
ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I concur in the opinion except for Section V. I choose not to join Section V, which concludes that the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is an individual right, because it is dicta and is therefore not binding on us or on any other court. The determination whether the rights bestowed by the Second Amendment are collective or individual is entirely unnecessary to resolve this case and has no bearing on the judgment we dictate by this opinion. The fact that the 84 pages of dicta contained in Section V are interesting, scholarly, and well written does not change the fact that they are dicta and amount to at best an advisory treatise on this long-running debate.
-
i agree with lonz, we could ban guns in this country and it will work. all we have to do is get those border patrol guys to keep guns out when there looking for drug smugglers. and we all know how impossible it is to get dope like heroin or cocane in this country.
-
I'm mostly concerned with why Lonz is measuring my noodle.
-
FYI, because Parker's opinion is in the minority, it is now dicta. Therefore, the majority opinion rules, not Parkers.
Originally posted by Erlkonig
-
I think that it is a cruel joke to play on the anti gun nuts to tell em that they will double their noodle size to 3" if they join the NRA.
lazs
-
"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."
Hmmm. The term "free state" is usually interpreted to mean a free nation.
However, there is another possible meaning. Could the authors have meant the state of being free ?
After Mr. Blonde's post how can you anti-gun supporters hold on to the argument that the authors of the Second Amendment were referring to a collective right? They understood perfectly well what the amendment meant. No one living in the former English colonies had to have its' meaning interpreted for them.
When some of you state that there is no longer a need for the right to bear arms, aren't you really saying that you would never be willing to revolt against our government, no matter what actions it takes in the future? Aren't you also saying that you would be unwilling to use deadly force to defend your life or the lives of your family when attacked by cutthroats in your home? Are you content to call the police and then wring your hands helplessly while hoping that they arrive on time? Do you have no sense of self-preservation?
If you wish to live your own life in such a fashion that is fine with me, but please do not insist that the rest of us become sheep as well.
Regards, Shuckins
-
schukins... I don't think you understand... All we have to do is not go out on the streets ever and build a $100,000 "panic room" to wait for the police in (don't forget to hook up the phone) and.... most of all... learn to trust our government in all matters. If you do all these things then it is easy to see that the right to keep and bear arms is passe and welll...... unhip. Certainly not worth saving when we have the more important matter of legalizing pot at hand. real freedom is being able to smoke pot till you grow 44 double D's not the ability to defend yourself from tyranny. petty or otherwise.
lazs
-
H. Godwineson:
When some of you state that there is no longer a need for the right to bear arms, aren't you really saying that you would never be willing to revolt against our government, no matter what actions it takes in the future? Aren't you also saying that you would be unwilling to use deadly force to defend your life or the lives of your family when attacked by cutthroats in your home?
That is exactly what they are saying. Why are you surprised? You can legally declare people to be free but not make them stop being slaves.
miko
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
\
In NZ its pretty straightforward. You don't need automatic weapons or pistols.
Lets go back in our time machine... say 60 years.. would you still think the same about the need for such wepons?
BTW if the Kiwi gov had clipped the wings of the airforce ( I know it was a Brit thing then but) like they have recently how many guys like Alan Peart do you think you would field?
just asking :)
-
Who said there was no need for the right to bear arms?
All I'm saying is that I don't believe that the constitution guarantees you that right.
The Miller decision WAS NOT about the 2nd Amendment, it was about the 5th. While the court did mention its belief that there was an individual right, that was not the ruling, and was incidental to the actual case.
No law regarding gun control has ever been struck down because of the 2nd Amendment.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
We need a "war on guns" just like our "war on drugs" in order to prevent events like the sniper killings.
Hmmm....30 years of "war on drugs" no victory in sight. Doubt the war on guns would be much better.
As Mr. Franklin said, those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither.
-
The entire English disarmament of its population had nothing to do with crime. The intent was to disarm the population to prevent insurrection.
-
midnight Target: All I'm saying is that I don't believe that the constitution guarantees you that right.
Strange, the wording seems quite explicit to me.
miko
-
nutballs like the DC sniper work in the opposite for "gun control"
since the shootings started, what do you think has happened to guns sales in the area?
I do not own a gun, cept a CO2 bb pistol, but if someone was taking pot shots at us in the Tampa area, my arse would be in line at the nearest dealer/gunshow. Though it'd do no good, I'd feel alot better with it under my seat. I'm sure there are more than a few doing/thinking the same in DC today ....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
nutballs like the DC sniper work in the opposite for "gun control"
since the shootings started, what do you think has happened to guns sales in the area?
Which is just good for gun salesman. If those morons think that owning a firearm is going to protect them from an unseen sniper perched somewhere off in the distance, they're fooling themselves.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Which is just good for gun salesman. If those morons think that owning a firearm is going to protect them from an unseen sniper perched somewhere off in the distance, they're fooling themselves.
you don't think guns sales in the area have risen since it started?
-
I'm sure it has...
Plenty of people willing to separate fools from their money.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I'm sure it has...
Plenty of people willing to separate fools from their money.
With a $16,000 bounty on his head, I'd be concealing and carrying ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
With a $16,000 bounty on his head, I'd be concealing and carrying ;)
I think it's up to $305,000
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I think it's up to $305,000
-
Are you saying only the police have the ability to take this guy down? How long would he last in an armed society? He would be more likely to be caught or shot by a citizen. They are no more likely to make a mistake in identification than the police are.
I trust the average, law-abiding citizen to make responsible decisions under such circumstances.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Are you saying only the police have the ability to take this guy down? How long would he last in an armed society? He would be more likely to be caught or shot by a citizen. They are no more likely to make a mistake in identification than the police are.
I trust the average, law-abiding citizen to make responsible decisions under such circumstances.
Regards, Shuckins
I don't. It's unconstitutional...
-
I don't. It's unconstitutional...
Boing!
Regards, Shuckins
-
The entire English disarmament of its population had nothing to do with crime. The intent was to disarm the population to prevent insurrection.
You what?
-
the right to kill criminels is protected under the 1st amendment , i think it that part where it says i can burn the american flag and read hustler mag
-
you can do whatever you like... just don't forget the parts about due process, fair and speedy trial, jury of peers, etc.
I don't trust the mob mentality. It kills people.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't trust the mob mentality. It kills people.
Works very well in the Mid East ;) Low crime rate too! :D
These men were convicted of Rape, the speedy trial took 2 hours from the time they were arrested ;)
(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20020929/i/1033310941.4227899425.jpg)
-
Rather than trot out some pictures of our own "great" history of mob justice, maybe you should do a search on lynchings.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Rather than trot out some pictures of our own "great" history of mob justice, maybe you should do a search on lynchings.
Ohhhh, but Sandman, the pic above is one of those countries that you and your supporters want to get so touchy/feely with...you know, Peace, Love, Dope....I'll buy your ticket! ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ohhhh, but Sandman, the pic above is one of those countries that you and your supporters want to get so touchy/feely with...you know, Peace, Love, Dope....I'll buy your ticket! ;)
Just to be clear. I don't give a rat's bellybutton about Iraq, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or Israel. I simply believe that our continued involvement in middle-eastern conflicts hasn't been nor will it ever be successful.
I also believe that I'd rather take a hit and then erase the offending country off the face of the planet then go about eradicating "potential" threats that have absolutely no reason to welcome the heavy hand of U.S. involvement in their conflicts.
-
Mob Mentality (http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/03/tulsa.riots.probe/)
No thank you.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I also believe that I'd rather take a hit and then erase the offending country off the face of the planet then go about eradicating "potential" threats that have absolutely no reason to welcome the heavy hand of U.S. involvement in their conflicts.
And if that country uses terrorist groups to deliver WMD to the US? How you gonna trace it? Then what?
-
Follow the money. Always follow the money.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Mob Mentality (http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/03/tulsa.riots.probe/)
No thank you.
Certainly tragic ...however...
The Tulsa commission is scheduled to release its final report on the riot in January. For many of the survivors, the issue is not money -- they want an apology.
I call BS. This is a typical Lawyer tactic, get them to admit guilt by apology, then sue the toejam out of them after the published apology. Makes your case for you. Don't ever be fooled EVERYTHING revolves around $$, everything....
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Follow the money. Always follow the money.
Agreed! Thats why the money trail ends in Iraq, sir.
-
sandman... are you saying that it is not possible or legal that some armed citizen may take out the sniper? If he shoots from a building he might find himself at the buissiness end of a pistol or shotgun. Citizens stop a million crime a year with firearms.. don't see why this guy would be immune.
you are right tho.. just buying a firearm is no guarentee of safety... I mean not like having a police force and a strong government but.... It is a start. Hopefully, the new owners will take the time to familiarize themselves with their new purchase and learn to appreciate and respect it. Even if only half of them get over their gunaphobia it will have been a little silver lining in this whole unfortunate and tragic mess.
and sandman... as your breasts get larger you may want to consider either firearms training or simply, baggy clothes and refraining from walking around unescorted at night.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandman... are you saying that it is not possible or legal that some armed citizen may take out the sniper? If he shoots from a building he might find himself at the buissiness end of a pistol or shotgun. Citizens stop a million crime a year with firearms.. don't see why this guy would be immune.
It's typically the position of the police that this is the last thing they want, misguided vigilante justice.
From a police standpoint, anyone with a rifle is a suspect.
Nice jab, Laz2... it's not a noodle thing. It's a target sorting problem. You're not helping the police by acting like one.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Agreed! Thats why the money trail ends in Iraq, sir.
That's the story anyway... still waiting for the proof.
-
sandman... police do not want people roaming the street in "vigilante" mobs no doubt but.... you are wrong about police views on armed citizens and their value. Police officers recognize the value of armed citizens and encourage people to arm themselves.
lazs
-
oh... and the "jab" was not a noodle thing. I was just refering to your use of pot.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
That's the story anyway... still waiting for the proof.
Something tells me that they could have film of money transfers from Saddams hands to Bin Ladens hands and you still wouldn't believe it (I only wish the trail was that simple, too)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandman... police do not want people roaming the street in "vigilante" mobs no doubt but.... you are wrong about police views on armed citizens and their value. Police officers recognize the value of armed citizens and encourage people to arm themselves.
lazs
No argument... but there is a limit. Once you leave the home with a loaded weapon, you are now potentially one of the "bad" guys.
Oh... and I don't use pot. My employer frowns on such activity.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Something tells me that they could have film of money transfers from Saddams hands to Bin Ladens hands and you still wouldn't believe it (I only wish the trail was that simple, too)
Well... it would take a little bit to sell... Bin Laden is on record as not agreeing with the way Hussein practices religion. He's not what they'd call a good fundamentalist muslim. They don't get along according to the reports.
-
All I'm saying is that I don't believe that the constitution guarantees you that right.
you know MT you may have a very good point
the 2nd neither grants nor guarantees me anything. My right to bear arms is mine and mine alone already, nobody gave it to me and I certainly do not rely on the government to guarantee it.
It ('It' being we the people) states the government shall NOT infringe on my right to bear arms . An inalienable right at that meaning it is incapable of being surrendered or transferred to anyone.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Blonde
you know MT you may have a very good point
the 2nd neither grants nor guarantees me anything. My right to bear arms is mine and mine alone already, nobody gave it to me and I certainly do not rely on the government to guarantee it.
It ('It' being we the people) states the government shall NOT infringe on my right to bear arms . An inalienable right at that meaning it is incapable of being surrendered or transferred to anyone.
You're funny.
-
Nice spin Mr. Blonde, and might I say that based on the intelligent nature of your posts I suspect you may have brunette roots.
The other half of my point is that there has never been a 2nd Amendment based reversal of any gun control legislation. Now why would that be?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... it would take a little bit to sell... Bin Laden is on record as not agreeing with the way Hussein practices religion. He's not what they'd call a good fundamentalist muslim. They don't get along according to the reports.
bin laden is not the only enemy of the United States that has hostile intentions. He is not the only one who has funded terrorist operations either. He is certainly not the one that has gone on record by giving a "martyrs reward" of 25K to the families of suicide bombers either. Kind of funny as they claim to be so poor and all that they can't feed all their starving kids.
-
It is not accurate to state that the "last thing the police want is an armed, vigilante citizenry." That is the stance of the various organizations of Police Chiefs, most of whose jobs are political in nature. If the police chief of Los Angeles were to state that he believed in an armed citizenry, he could measure his career in hours.
Polls of the rank and file members of the nation's police departments reveal a different mindset altogether. The great majority do not fear armed and law-abiding citizens. These officers realize that citizens perfectly capable of making rational decisions when they are being threatened or attacked. "Vigilante justice" is one of those bugabears that is trotted out whenever this subject is being discussed. States that have right-to-carry laws have not been subjected to a rash of vigilante justice. Instead, they have seen their crime rates go down.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Were there "right to carry" laws in Oklahoma in the 1920's?
-
it's quite simple really... we do have some examples to go on. Florida had a huge mugging/robbery/violent crime rate that went down by a large percent when right to carry laws were liberalized. Every state that liberalizes right to carry laws has a corresponding drop in crime rate. Those whos gun laws are the toughest continue to have a rising violent crime rate.. Australia had a 40% increase (and still going up) when the wusses handed over (so much for rugged and independent myth) their firearms to be shredded.
Now... Of all those hundreds of thousands of concealed carry people running around... Have you ever heard of a policeman shooting one by mistake? do you know what the rate of crime is for these concealed carry people?
The big bad boogy man firearm is nothing but a tool that some are frightened of and because of their fear they want to punish the rest of us.
By defenition, a "nut" is someone who is not rational. A "gun nut" to me would be someone who has an irrational fear of guns. Anti gun guys are the real gun nuts.
lazs
-
GUNS GUNS GUNS!