View Full Version : Confucy, do you really think this ?
sarettah
09-11-2003, 08:18 AM
And yes... I have been aware that you, Lew, whoever had this site out there for quite a while.....
Question.... If you want to get rid of guns, why try to get laws passed...
Why not just go for a change to the constitution.... IMHO that is the only way that guns can possibly be made illegal in the U.S.....
That this is sponsored by your talk radio Lawyer friend (Clark Garen) convinces me that he doesn';t know twat about the law.....
************************************************** ****
http://www.goodbyeguns.org/
PETITION TO BAN ALL GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES
We, the people, are tired of having our schools invaded by psychotic youngsters. We, the people, are tired of being robbed of our political leaders by some psychotic with a gun or a rifle. We, the people, are tired of passing through metal detectors on our way to our courts and our governmental buildings. We, the people, are tired of being victimized by gun carrying criminals.
While there are many long term solutions that would decrease the number of outlaw gun operators, there will always be an unacceptable number of non-compliant gun operators in a country with a population of 250 million people. We, the people, are faced with only two choices. One is to place guards, metal detectors, and other devices designed to invade the personal liberties of the citizens at every single place where the public gathers. The other alternative is to eliminate all guns and firearms from the United States of America. Given that we must choose from one of these two choices, we, the people, choose to eliminate all privately held guns and firearms from the United States of America.
We, the people, therefore call upon you, our elected representatives, to enact legislation to remove all guns and firearms from private ownership. We, the people, call upon you, our elected representatives, to enact laws to:
Create a one year period for the United States of America to purchase at fair market value all guns and firearms, including hand guns, rifles, and even antique guns and rifles from domestic private ownership.
Prohibit and criminalize the domestic sale of guns and firearms, whether new or used.
Seize and destroy any gun or firearm found after the termination of the purchase period without compensation.
Prohibit and criminalize the domestic possession of a gun or firearm after the termination of the one year purchase period.
Provide exemptions for governmental law enforcement agencies, the armed services, and bona fide museums.
OldJeff
09-11-2003, 08:47 AM
Didn't they try somthing like this in Germany, started in 1928, perfected in 1938 ?
While there are many long term solutions that would decrease the number of outlaw gun operators, there will always be an unacceptable number of non-compliant gun operators in a country with a population of 250 million people.
And there will still be non-compliant gun operators if every gun was made illegal. Unless of course there is some magic wand that will wisk them all away with just a wave.
We, the people, are faced with only two choices. One is to place guards, metal detectors, and other devices designed to invade the personal liberties of the citizens at every single place where the public gathers.
Now this is just amazing. Selective personal liberties from people who claim to be civil lbertarians and feel threatened by a police state. WTF?
The other alternative is to eliminate all guns and firearms from the United States of America. Given that we must choose from one of these two choices, we, the people, choose to eliminate all privately held guns and firearms from the United States of America.
As if this is actually possible. Did making drugs/alchohol illegal eliminate them from the United States of America? Or did it fuel a black market that drove the price higher and motivated criminals to stake a claim in the distribution?
Is the money wasted on the Drug War well spent? Could it be spent better on education and treatment? How much would a war on guns cost?
Fucking idealists. Get a clue or join the ranks of the other simpleminded imbeciles that can't see the forest through the trees! :headwall:
i would hate to see Wig's attitude when they finally try to outlaw donkeys.
:o
my grandfather said his neighbor when he was little used to have big Bar B Que's in the summer where they would eat them. he said they put a sign out by the road that said "Get a piece of ass for a $1.00"
he also likes melted Bleu Cheese on his apple pie which always seemed a little weird to me. it seemed to be a little like heating up sweaty jock straps and gym socks and putting them on your ice cream. i never could figure out how that would make something taste better. i used to just tell myself it was because he got shot several times in the Korean War.
just thought i would toss that out there
Just for the record, I have horses and mules. :D
But, outlawing Donkeys makes about as much sense as outlawing guns.
Create a one year period for the United States of America to purchase at fair market value all guns and firearms, including hand guns, rifles, and even antique guns and rifles from domestic private ownership.
Heaven forbid!
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, shall soon find themselves under the yoke of those who kept their swords."
The 2nd Amendment should not be tinkered with in any way. It is an important safeguard against tyranny, and IMO more important than ever in light of recent events.
Originally posted by wig@Sep 11 2003, 05:56 AM
Just for the record, I have horses and mules. :D
But, outlawing Donkeys makes about as much sense as outlawing guns.
hahaha! "Mules" - i was sitting here thinking.. what the fuck is the word i am looking for. i knew donkey wasn't right... but couldn't find the word i as looking for. thank you.
Mule
Mules
Mule
Mules
Mule
Mules
got it!
:)
confucy
09-11-2003, 10:11 AM
Sarettah, I think Clark is like Serge. He likes to stir up the pot. My only connection with the site is that I designed it. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years. I do know that it served a purpose when he had his radio show. After 9/11 and the war, it probably should be taken down.
Originally posted by Rox@Sep 11 2003, 05:57 AM
The 2nd Amendment should not be tinkered with in any way. It is an important safeguard against tyranny, and IMO more important than ever in light of recent events.
I dont think the 2nd Amendment would have to be tinkered with, since the 2nd Amendment does not have anything to do with those who are not part of a "well organized militia"
sarettah
09-11-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by confucy@Sep 11 2003, 09:19 AM
Sarettah, I think Clark is like Serge. He likes to stir up the pot. My only connection with the site is that I designed it. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years. I do know that it served a purpose when he had his radio show. After 9/11 and the war, it probably should be taken down.
So, it is not your personal belief..............cool.
Just wanted to be sure.............
but dammit, now I have to go find some other topic to hit you over the head with........
BTW... did you see the poll........ You are loved :inlove: and someone besides voddoo wants to take you for a ride on their bike.......
:yowsa:
JR, I have to ageree with Rox.
But more to your point, I believe there is ample evidence that supports an individual right.
I posted this the last time it came up, but no one bothered to comment on it.
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
sarettah
09-11-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by JR+Sep 11 2003, 09:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Sep 11 2003, 09:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Rox@Sep 11 2003, 05:57 AM
The 2nd Amendment should not be tinkered with in any way. It is an important safeguard against tyranny, and IMO more important than ever in light of recent events.
I dont think the 2nd Amendment would have to be tinkered with, since the 2nd Amendment does not have anything to do with those who are not part of a "well organized militia"[/b][/quote]
here we go again....
BULLSHIT....................
the "right of the people" cannot be interpreted as anything but "the people".... If it was a states right, it would say "the states"... as it does in othere amendments.......
:angry:
confucy
09-11-2003, 10:43 AM
Sarettah, I own guns, but they are kept in Indiana. I grew up with guns all around me. My father was a policeman. My brothers are hunters and collectors of guns. I have a respect for guns. But, I wish that all weapons would disappear. Too many people use them only for killing human beings.
Especially today, I would like to think of the world in a peaceful way.
Originally posted by confucy@Sep 11 2003, 09:51 AM
Sarettah, I own guns, but they are kept in Indiana. I grew up with guns all around me. My father was a policeman. My brothers are hunters and collectors of guns. I have a respect for guns. But, I wish that all weapons would disappear. Too many people use them only for killing human beings.
Especially today, I would like to think of the world in a peaceful way.
LOL Spoken like a true idealist!
Winetalk.com
09-11-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by confucy@Sep 11 2003, 09:19 AM
Sarettah, I think Clark is like Serge. He likes to stir up the pot.
confucy,
I don't like to stir pot,
I only like to smoke it!
{Please make a note of it!
;_))
Originally posted by sarettah+Sep 11 2003, 06:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Sep 11 2003, 06:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Sep 11 2003, 09:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Rox@Sep 11 2003, 05:57 AM
The 2nd Amendment should not be tinkered with in any way. It is an important safeguard against tyranny, and IMO more important than ever in light of recent events.
I dont think the 2nd Amendment would have to be tinkered with, since the 2nd Amendment does not have anything to do with those who are not part of a "well organized militia"
here we go again....
BULLSHIT....................
the "right of the people" cannot be interpreted as anything but "the people".... If it was a states right, it would say "the states"... as it does in othere amendments.......
:angry:[/b][/quote]
i dont know. it does not say "people have the right to bear arms" - it says... blah blah blah..."well organized militia" which seems to me to mean the intent was clear that they were not talking about everyone. I am not saying anything about "states rights" - i am talking about the usual banter that the 2nd Amendment guarantees everyone the right to a grenade launcher, amour piercing bullets and flack jackets for "deer hunting"
Federal law defines two types of militia. Billy bob in a trailer park, drinking beer and watching the game and skinnin' mule deer, does not constitute a militia. neither does banding together in the hills of Idaho next to your bunkers and weapons caches and calling yourselves a "militia"
dont be mad.
please.
dont hate me because i dont care about guns... and still dont fear stormtroopers kicking in my door to steal my children as a part of a massive government conspiracy to take over the planet just because i was stupid enough to not have a .38 revolver in my purse.
:P
sarettah
09-11-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by JR@Sep 11 2003, 10:20 AM
dont be mad.
please.
dont hate me because i dont care about guns... and still dont fear stormtroopers kicking in my door to steal my children as a part of a massive government conspiracy to take over the planet just because i was stupid enough to not have a .38 revolver in my purse.
Can I hate you for something else..................
:yowsa:
its not really that i have a strong opinion about guns by the way... its that after reading the 2nd Amendment and looking up the definitions of militia, i realized how this is being twisted and quoted out of context to make a point that is not entirely accurate. if it was, it would not be quoted out of context and there would not be controversy as to its meaning.
thats just the opinion of a son of a professional big game hunter and Alaska brown bear guide.
in the end, i just dont have an use for guns.
i may feel differently however, if i lived somewhere dangerous or was dealing cocaine.
Originally posted by sarettah+Sep 11 2003, 07:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Sep 11 2003, 07:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Sep 11 2003, 10:20 AM
dont be mad.
please.
dont hate me because i dont care about guns... and still dont fear stormtroopers kicking in my door to steal my children as a part of a massive government conspiracy to take over the planet just because i was stupid enough to not have a .38 revolver in my purse.
Can I hate you for something else..................
:yowsa:[/b][/quote]
no. hate in the end, only hurts you.
well... unless you attack me.
shit, where is my gun?
ulfie
09-11-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by JR@Sep 11 2003, 10:20 AM
dont hate me because i dont care about guns... and still dont fear stormtroopers kicking in my door to steal my children as a part of a massive government conspiracy to take over the planet just because i was stupid enough to not have a .38 revolver in my purse.
:P
You carry a purse?
Here is the 2nd Amendment text in question.
"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."
----------------------------------
Here is the definition of militia.
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(B)
The classes of the militia are -
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
-------------------------
So the argument has to be that a "well regulated militia" is the same as an "unorganized militia"
and what is the "militia" that we are all members of that gives us the "right to bear arms"
and how is that "militia" ... "well regulated" as the 2nd Amendment demands?
Last edited by JR at Sep 11 2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by ulfie+Sep 11 2003, 07:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ulfie @ Sep 11 2003, 07:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Sep 11 2003, 10:20 AM
dont hate me because i dont care about guns... and still dont fear stormtroopers kicking in my door to steal my children as a part of a massive government conspiracy to take over the planet just because i was stupid enough to not have a .38 revolver in my purse.
:P
You carry a purse?[/b][/quote]
only on friday nights, when i dress in a skirt and high heels, get drunk on wine coolers and skip down the street singing show tunes. thats when i usually feel most vulnerable.
Peaches
09-11-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by ulfie+Sep 11 2003, 11:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ulfie @ Sep 11 2003, 11:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Sep 11 2003, 10:20 AM
dont hate me because i dont care about guns... and still dont fear stormtroopers kicking in my door to steal my children as a part of a massive government conspiracy to take over the planet just because i was stupid enough to not have a .38 revolver in my purse.
:P
You carry a purse?[/b][/quote]
And apparently now has children! :unsure:
JR, obviously you did not check out the link that I posted. So in all fairness to your interpretation, here is the other side of the story from Eugene Volokh.
He teaches free speech law, copyright law, the law of government and religion, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy at UCLA Law School. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Volokh also worked for 12 years as a computer programmer, and is still partner in a small software company which sells HP 3000 software that he wrote. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. He is a member of the The American Law Institute.
The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. 1 These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right.
What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, which some commentators have called "unusual," "special," and "nearly unique"? 2 It turns out that there's nothing odd about it at all. During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right. The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution's Free Press Clause, for instance, reads
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 3
Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public.
And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a "right of the people," which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a "well-regulated militia," a legal term of art that means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention's proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment 4) -- the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard-type unit. The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45; 5 given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person.
sarettah
09-11-2003, 12:01 PM
Yeah Jr.................
what Wig said......................
:nyanya:
Ok Wig, Sarretah,
I just read United States v. Miller again. I understand a lot of the argument.
BUT - the purpose of a militia as the court stated in that case is...
"that it was composed of 'civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws"
how can the argument then be that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms to protect yourself from the potential "tyranny of the government" if the very purpose of the militia is to enforce the law and will of the government?
i did read it all. its a guy explaining why it can be interpreted another way. i can say the opposite by asking "where is this well regulated militia"? it puts us back to square 1.
we can have this same discussion of any passage in the Bible. we can each prove anything we want by seeking out only the info that supports our views.
ulfie
09-11-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by JR@Sep 11 2003, 10:58 AM
You carry a purse?
only on friday nights, when i dress in a skirt and high heels, get drunk on wine coolers and skip down the street singing show tunes. thats when i usually feel most vulnerable.[/quote]
Watch out for this Voodooman guy that is roaming around Florida. :D
"The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. 1 These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right."
this is just speculation. not fact. its an "intepretation" supported by loose, circumstantial evidence.
OTHERWISE he would not finish and say in summary... "that strongly suggests..."
Last edited by JR at Sep 11 2003, 08:26 AM
sarettah
09-11-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by JR@Sep 11 2003, 11:16 AM
we can have this same discussion of any passage in the Bible. we can each prove anything we want by seeking out only the info that supports our views.
Yeah...
but me and wig will still be right and anyone who disagrees with us will be wrong and a commie pinko unamerican type person..............
(not trying to kill a serious discussion, but yes, things are open to interpretation and I learned quite a ways back not to beat that horse...he still just lies there no matter how hard I hit him)
voodooman
09-11-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by sarettah+Sep 11 2003, 08:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Sep 11 2003, 08:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--confucy@Sep 11 2003, 09:19 AM
Sarettah, I think Clark is like Serge. He likes to stir up the pot. My only connection with the site is that I designed it. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years. I do know that it served a purpose when he had his radio show. After 9/11 and the war, it probably should be taken down.
So, it is not your personal belief..............cool.
Just wanted to be sure.............
but dammit, now I have to go find some other topic to hit you over the head with........
BTW... did you see the poll........ You are loved :inlove: and someone besides voddoo wants to take you for a ride on their bike.......
:yowsa:[/b][/quote]
How did I get drug into this?
I love guns, and will die defending the right to own them.
People that dont like guns should keep their
opinions to themselves.
Responsible gun owners dont go
around petitioning for gun haters to be banned.
There are far more people that own guns and
use them responsibly than there are people
looking to kill someone.
Disarm America, and we will be owned by another
country in no time PERIOD
Originally posted by JR@Sep 11 2003, 11:16 AM
i did read it all. its a guy explaining why it can be interpreted another way. i can say the opposite by asking "where is this well regulated militia"? it puts us back to square 1.
we can have this same discussion of any passage in the Bible. we can each prove anything we want by seeking out only the info that supports our views.
It seems to me that he is making an arguement that is IS to be interpreted a certain way.
Nevertheless, people have to make up their own minds.
JR, people do not have to be scared of their children being kidnapped, support grenade launcher ownwership, deal cocaine or live in a dangerous area to believe in the right to own a firearm for self defense, pleasure or as a collector.
Jokingly or not, trying to paint this extreme picture incorrectly stereotypes the vast majority of gun supporters.
Peaches
09-11-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by ulfie@Sep 11 2003, 12:21 PM
You carry a purse?
only on friday nights, when i dress in a skirt and high heels, get drunk on wine coolers and skip down the street singing show tunes. thats when i usually feel most vulnerable.
Watch out for this Voodooman guy that is roaming around Florida. :D[/quote]
Voodoo's easy to spot - he's the one walking around with roses and condoms.
confucy
09-13-2003, 04:10 AM
Voodooman, you lived out here in LA. I can't walk on the beach after dark because it isn't safe. I live in a fairly upscale community, but a good friend was attacked by two gun carrying lowlife gang members on the beach near MDR. This guy is the size of Arnold. He works out at Gold's gym. His size and his strong body were of no help to him when facing two punks with guns. They stole his money, and beat him up. Thank God they didn't use those guns. He didn't fight back because he didn't want to be shot.
If there were absolutely no guns, I would feel free to take my nightly runs on the beach. I would feel safe going into Hollywood and downtown LA at any time of the day.
I'm not being an idealist. I just want to live in a safe world. I don't want to have to take my shoes off at airports or have to undress for body searches because I fit some kind of profile. I want a little love in this world. Take the damn guns and weapons of mass destruction, and stop the madness! :salute:
Hell Puppy
09-13-2003, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by confucy@Sep 13 2003, 03:18 AM
If there were absolutely no guns, I would feel free to take my nightly runs on the beach. I would feel safe going into Hollywood and downtown LA at any time of the day.
Oh shit, here we go.....
Peaches
09-13-2003, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by confucy@Sep 13 2003, 04:18 AM
If there were absolutely no guns, I would feel free to take my nightly runs on the beach. I would feel safe going into Hollywood and downtown LA at any time of the day.
Really? So knives, baseball bats, stun guns, and pure human strength wouldn't scare you? No one has ever been killed, injured or raped unless the perpetrator was using a gun?
If there were no guns, then you'd have no way to protect yourself against these criminals. B)
sarettah
09-13-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by confucy@Sep 13 2003, 03:18 AM
I'm not being an idealist. I just want to live in a safe world.
To once again try to quote a very wise man....
Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security.
--- Ben Franklin
I can't see what the legality of personal rights is bought up as such an important issue when America has thousands of kids and 10's of thousands of people being killed by guns each year.
Surely the people that really believe it is a right and responsibilty to own a gun should be the ones working hardest to enact gun control laws that at least start to reduce the killing whilst allowing reasonable ownership rights.
I doubt very many pro gun rights people want no restrictions.. the argument should be about where the lines are drawn.. you have already agreed to give up your unrestricted rights to gun ownership if you accept that assault weapons should be banned imho.
sarettah
09-13-2003, 11:17 AM
Opti....
I accept NO RESTRICTIONS unless they amend the constitution....
I am not against gun control... I am against legislation that flys against the spirit and word of our constitution....
If they want gun control then they must amend the constitution to allow gun control...in my mind it is as simple as that....
Our constitution is a wonderful document that includes the meschanisms to change it to come up to currentr situations no matter what they may be....
The gun control advocates want to override the constitution through legislation and through having the courts legislate... That is wrong... The only right way to do it is to amend the constitution....
But that is the longest hardest path to change.. They want to circumvent that process.... That is where my objections lie....
Originally posted by confucy@Sep 13 2003, 12:18 AM
If there were absolutely no guns, I would feel free to take my nightly runs on the beach. I would feel safe going into Hollywood and downtown LA at any time of the day.
I'm not being an idealist. I just want to live in a safe world. I don't want to have to take my shoes off at airports or have to undress for body searches because I fit some kind of profile. I want a little love in this world. Take the damn guns and weapons of mass destruction, and stop the madness! :salute:
Confucy, sorry to hear about your friend. His being beaten and robbed is fucked up, whether the thugs had guns or not.
God knows I'd prefer a peaceful world where people weren't killing each other, but the reality is they do. And for some of the stupidest reasons: a little bit of cash, a piece of jewelry, or most ridiculous of all, in a frenzy of "my God's better than your God."
Banning guns is not a viable answer, and in fact, I'm inclined to go to the other extreme and wish that anyone who wants a gun and qualifies should be issued a concealed carry permit. Why should the criminals be secure in the knowledge that they're the only ones who're armed? They'd think twice about committing crimes if there was a good chance their intended victims were ready, willing and able to blow a hole in their ass before the thug could rob them. I think that having law-abiding citizens be unarmed while criminals remain free to keep an illegal arsenal would just be wrong.
As an American I have the right to defend my life, liberty and property. Should any of those be in peril, I'd be justified in sticking a knife in whomever posed the threat, or beating them with a stick... but I'd much rather have a firearm at my disposal since it overcomes the disadvantage of being smaller and/or weaker than any attacker; not to mention being a threat that might be taken far more seriously when it's stuck in a criminal's face. Chances are they'd still try to wrestle a club or knife out of my hand, but facing the barrel of a gun changes things altogether -- as your unfortunate big, strong friend knows firsthand.
I'd like to feel safe, too, but I much prefer to take the responsibility upon myself than to count on the government to do the job. They've proven they're not up to the task -- more so in the past two years than ever. I don't know about you, but I feel less safe today than I did on September 10, 2001; and I most definitely feel less FREE.
And Opti, I personally think changes in the drug laws would go a long way toward bringing down the number of people killed by guns; more so than gun control legislation ever will. Drive-by and gang-related shootings are nearly always carried out because someone's encroached on someone else's turf.
confucy
09-13-2003, 12:06 PM
Rox, I agree with almost everything you said. I think my friend put up the petition to get a response from his radio listeners. He did. Viruses, death threats, spamming. He definitely got responses. :grrr:
A couple of years ago when I would walk/run with a friend, she carried pepper spray and a golf club. Those walking their dogs would laugh at us. One beautiful night, she decided to test her new *spray* on some rocks. The damn thing didn't work! What kind of protection is that??
I have no guns here in California. If I had handguns, they would be here for one purpose...shooting a human being, and I don't think I could do that! My brother carries a handgun in a small town in Indiana. He said it isn't safe. I laughed and told him if he wanted to see some unsafe places...come visit me in California. The guns I own are not handguns. They are locked away in Indiana.
I grew up loving guns. I went hunting with my big brothers, and I was their gun caddie. I carried all the little extras they might need as we searched for squirrels, wild rabbits, and deer. As a small child, I use to cry when an animal was shot and killed. All the animals that were killed were eaten. (not by me) I was practically a vegetarian in those days. The only animal I have ever killed was a small sparrow with a shotgun. When I saw it floating down a stream, I cried and have never shot an animal again.
BUT, I am sick and tired of crime! I want people to shape up and save their guns for hunting and target practice.
Rox, what are we going to do so we aren't so afraid? You are living in the capital of carjackings...the San Fernando Valley. I am living in an area where gang members prowl the beaches, both during the day and night.
ARNOLD, if you become governor of this beautiful state of California, what are you going to do about CRIME?? :salute: :salute:
If there were absolutely no guns, I would feel free to take my nightly runs on the beach. I would feel safe going into Hollywood and downtown LA at any time of the day.
I'm not being an idealist. I just want to live in a safe world.
LOL Honey, you are clearly an idealist!
Idealist - One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations.
When you say "absolutely no guns", I can only presume you believe that making all guns illegal would physically eliminate them from this country. That there would be no criminal element or black market. That is very naive don't you think?
I would love to hear why you think prohibition of guns will work while prohibition of prostitution and drugs does not??
Life is not a bowl of cherries.
Originally posted by Rox@Sep 13 2003, 10:55 AM
And Opti, I personally think changes in the drug laws would go a long way toward bringing down the number of people killed by guns; more so than gun control legislation ever will. Drive-by and gang-related shootings are nearly always carried out because someone's encroached on someone else's turf.
Rox, excellent point! :okthumb:
I agree completely with this assertion.
Originally posted by JR+Sep 11 2003, 10:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Sep 11 2003, 10:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -ulfie@Sep 11 2003, 07:44 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--JR@Sep 11 2003, 10:20 AM
dont hate me because i dont care about guns... and still dont fear stormtroopers kicking in my door to steal my children as a part of a massive government conspiracy to take over the planet just because i was stupid enough to not have a .38 revolver in my purse.
:P
You carry a purse?
only on friday nights, when i dress in a skirt and high heels, get drunk on wine coolers and skip down the street singing show tunes. thats when i usually feel most vulnerable.[/b][/quote]
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things
Cream collored ponies and crisp apple strudel
Doorbells and sleighbells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few of my favorite things
When the dog bites, when the bee stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite things
Then I don't feel so bad
Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
These are a few of my favorite things
Cream collored ponies and crisp apple strudel
Doorbells and sleighbells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few of my favorite things
Peaches
09-13-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by confucy@Sep 13 2003, 12:14 PM
BUT, I am sick and tired of crime! I want people to shape up and save their guns for hunting and target practice.
That's what the responsible owners DO use their guns for. :unsure: Now, if someone attacks me or breaks into my house, then they BECOME hunted and a target. :)
I can't see what the legality of personal rights is bought up as such an important issue when America has thousands of kids and 10's of thousands of people being killed by guns each year.
First, what Sare said! Second, yes it is tragic that anyone dies before their time. However, instead of having a knee jerk reaction, perhaps we should think about whether banning guns, knives, bats, swimming pools or automobiles is the right, long-term approach.
Surely the people that really believe it is a right and responsibilty to own a gun should be the ones working hardest to enact gun control laws that at least start to reduce the killing whilst allowing reasonable ownership rights.
Opti, do you realize that there are 20,000 gun laws already on the books in the US? Yes, I would say that an overwhelming majority of gun owners are for reasonable laws. In fact, we already have them.
I doubt very many pro gun rights people want no restrictions.. the argument should be about where the lines are drawn.. you have already agreed to give up your unrestricted rights to gun ownership if you accept that assault weapons should be banned imho.
Assault weapons are not banned where I live (as long as they are not fully automatic). RPG's, grenade launchers, C-4, machine guns, etc. all are regulated by the ATF. You have to have a class 3 license to deal in this type of stuff, which means you are registered with the ATF and have passed an FBI background check. There are many laws. I would imagine that most current laws are acceptable to the people.
For instance, I did not have a problem following the law, taking a class, getting fingerprinted and passing a background check to get my carry permit. I accept the laws about where I can and cannot carry a gun concealed.
The problem that I have is that it is a slippery slope at this point. The fact that prohibition does not work does not register with many people and policy makers. It is clear by some of their statements and the statements of groups like Hand Gun Control Inc and the Brady Group that an all out ban is acceptable to them. They are incrementally moving this direction.
If it persists, only criminals will have guns. And it will persist unless we stop it because each incremental step will get us no where closer to solving the problem resulting in further reaching laws.
Now, I understand it is hard to relate to the US and our gun heritage. But putting the 2nd Amendment aside, the fact is there are 300 million guns in the US and you will never get rid of them all. The choice is do you want them to be only in the criminals hands or not.
I wish I had an answer, Confucy, truly I do. Unfortunately, I think the answer has less to do with law enforcement than with social change that I despair of ever seeing come to pass.
Too many people want the government to shoulder the entire burden of cleaning up the streets so they can feel safe. I really admire those folks I read about who have decided to take matters into their own hands and form Neighborhood Watch groups that patrol the streets on which they live, and have been successful in making their neighborhoods safer for themselves and their children. And most of them have done it without carrying guns -- I can only imagine how much MORE successful these groups would be were there licensed gun owners among the Watch. Even criminals have some sense of their own mortality and would prefer to avoid putting themselves in a position to get killed.
Americans, and especially Californians have become pussified to the point that it disgusts me. They've settled into being stupid, lazy and scared, and would rather whine until they can get legislation passed than grow a fucking spine and do whatever it takes to stop being victims. Granted, so many ridiculous laws are already in place (due in no small way to previous pussy-whining) that tie our hands that it might be a difficult task to insist on the right to take back our streets by forming what some see as vigilante groups. But we should. If the gangs we can run out of our neighborhoods by coming out in force are Mexican, or Black, or Vietnamese, that doesn't have anything to do with anything. They're criminals, period, and as such have no right to continue victimizing law-abiding citizens. There's no question of being "unfairly targeted" due to race; whatever color you are, if you're putting my life, liberty or property in jeopardy, you're a fucking criminal and should be taken out of the picture.
With all that said, however, it's not a coincidence that there tend to be more criminals among some races than others. That's a by-product of the culture in which they live; something white people will never, ever understand or live through. When a young man can feed his family better on the money he makes selling drugs to rich white kids than he can working at a minimum-wage job that's the only thing he MIGHT be able to get, how difficult is the decision?
I believe that changes in the drug laws and education are key to lowering the rate of violent crime and gang activity. But that's a long row to hoe, with many obstacles -- not the least of which is the fact that pharmaceutical companies pour millions of dollars into the pockets of politicians to make SURE that THEIR drugs are the only ones that are legal. White folk want a quick and easy fix, carried out by law enforcement and legislation so they don't have to trouble themselves or get their hands dirty; or God forbid, spend any time in those neighborhoods where hopelessness, despair and a lack of access to a decent education breed rage and criminal behavior. All they know is they want "them" to stay in their own neighborhoods, where they won't pose a threat to white folk.
Nope, I don't have any answers, unfortunately. All I seem to have are more questions; none of which are being addressed by the officials who are supposed to be representing me. They're too busy working on laws that will help the pussies feel better about being pussies, like making it a crime to smoke a fucking cigarette in public, absolving the pussies from having to have enough backbone to say, "Hey, your smoke is bothering me. Would you mind going upwind?" :headwall:
Wig,
Excellent post, kudos my friend!
Guns are an integral part of America, and inarguably put us in the position of superpower that we are today. We are a sovereign nation because the common people were willing to take up arms against a King and his men in defense of our liberty. The 2nd Amendment exists because our leaders knew that threats to our freedom don't necessarily always come from without and the People should always have the means and the right to overthrow tyrants, even or maybe especially those who are homegrown.
You make some good points Wig.. in fact we are probably on the same page... You seem accepting of reasonable regulation... (sorry Sarettah, not ignoring your protest) which is an example of what leaves me scratching my head.. Why tout 2nd ammendment issues as an important case to for gun ownership... the 2nd ammendment appears to be the argument of last defence to me.
Rox, apart from drug crime.. fixing poverty problems might make an impact on gun deaths too.... but the accidental deaths of kids issue would be where I would start.. who could argue that isnt important enough to justify at least talking about some sort of new restrictions, without chest beating about the constitution.
American's everywhere are desperate to protect their kids from porn.. and thats more important than finding a way to make the community take enough responsibility with firearms so that thousands of kids per year dont die it seems!
Arguing for free gun ownership because someone wants to hunt or feels the need to protect themselves may be somewhat justifiable reasons to let so many innocent people keep dieing... But using the 2nd ammendant as an excuse for un-regulated gun ownership when the situation is so obviously out of control is about as logical as one lemming following another over a cliff imho.
Peaches
09-13-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Opti@Sep 13 2003, 03:39 PM
Rox, apart from drug crime.. fixing poverty problems might make an impact on gun deaths too.... but the accidental deaths of kids issue would be where I would start.. who could argue that isnt important enough to justify at least talking about some sort of new restrictions, without chest beating about the constitution.
I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that the "accidental deaths" of children from firearms is a MUCH smaller number than the deaths of children from their parent's own hand and even moreso, from accidents in the home that didn't involve firearms.
I did look up homicide stats and you're much more likely to die in a car wreck. In fact, of the top 15 causes of death in the US, firearms - any - didn't make the list. And that number of firearms DEATHS has dropped almost every year since the 1970's.
Originally posted by Peaches+Sep 14 2003, 06:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Sep 14 2003, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Opti@Sep 13 2003, 03:39 PM
Rox, apart from drug crime.. fixing poverty problems might make an impact on gun deaths too.... but the accidental deaths of kids issue would be where I would start.. who could argue that isnt important enough to justify at least talking about some sort of new restrictions, without chest beating about the constitution.
I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that the "accidental deaths" of children from firearms is a MUCH smaller number than the deaths of children from their parent's own hand and even moreso, from accidents in the home that didn't involve firearms.
I did look up homicide stats and you're much more likely to die in a car wreck. In fact, of the top 15 causes of death in the US, firearms - any - didn't make the list. And that number of firearms DEATHS has dropped almost every year since the 1970's.[/b][/quote]
oh.. I thought it was a big issue.. like 4-5000 kids under 18 killed in gun accidents annually and rising...
I will blame Dr. Phil for my misconception.. saw a show he did claiming a really big increase in the numbers a week or two ago... guess he isnt the best source possible.. actually I will blame Dr. Phil and Michael Moore in equal does maybe.. Moore even makes the idea of visiting America a little scarey!
Peaches
09-13-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Opti@Sep 13 2003, 05:10 PM
oh.. I thought it was a big issue.. like 4-5000 kids under 18 killed in gun accidents annually and rising...
Per the CDC's website, 436 children aged 0-14 (I used that criteria since 15 and above, IMHO, isn't any more "accidental" than an adult) died of ANY firearm related death in 2000 (the most recent year they have listed).
Originally posted by Opti+Sep 13 2003, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Opti @ Sep 13 2003, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Peaches@Sep 14 2003, 06:57 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Opti@Sep 13 2003, 03:39 PM
Rox, apart from drug crime.. fixing poverty problems might make an impact on gun deaths too.... but the accidental deaths of kids issue would be where I would start.. who could argue that isnt important enough to justify at least talking about some sort of new restrictions, without chest beating about the constitution.
I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that the "accidental deaths" of children from firearms is a MUCH smaller number than the deaths of children from their parent's own hand and even moreso, from accidents in the home that didn't involve firearms.
I did look up homicide stats and you're much more likely to die in a car wreck. In fact, of the top 15 causes of death in the US, firearms - any - didn't make the list. And that number of firearms DEATHS has dropped almost every year since the 1970's.
oh.. I thought it was a big issue.. like 4-5000 kids under 18 killed in gun accidents annually and rising...
I will blame Dr. Phil for my misconception.. saw a show he did claiming a really big increase in the numbers a week or two ago... guess he isnt the best source possible.. actually I will blame Dr. Phil and Michael Moore in equal does maybe.. Moore even makes the idea of visiting America a little scarey![/b][/quote]
The last Dr Phil show I watched was about the tragic household accident of children falling out of 2nd story windows ...
i mean no disrespect to the parents in saying this, but ... accidents happen ... the laws of probability will always outweight the laws we make for ourselves. the fact that the parents have devoted their lives to the prevention of this accident through telling other parents to put bars on their windows seems kinda fruitless to me, when all the bars in the world can not stop an accident from happening
x amount of people are going to get bitten by sharks every year no matter how many nets are set up ... people will fall off ladders, trip over their shoelaces and fall in front of a bus etc etc ...
are we going to start an 'organisation for the prevention of ...' for every type of accident that hurts or kills a human being?
sarettah
09-13-2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Opti@Sep 13 2003, 02:39 PM
(sorry Sarettah, not ignoring your protest) which is an example of what leaves me scratching my head.. Why tout 2nd ammendment issues as an important case to for gun ownership... the 2nd ammendment appears to be the argument of last defence to me.
Nopers... The first argument is the 2nd amendment on this issue...
It is a guarantee in our constitution.... period...
If someone wants to override that guarantee, then they need to amend the thing, pure and simple...
The amendment in question includes the phrase "shall not be infringed"...
Which means to me that you cannot make a law that regulates what arms a CITIZEN can carry... Unless you amend the constitution to say something along the lines of "within reasonable guidelines" or something....
I am not a gun nut... and in fact think there should be a reasonable limitation (I don't want folks driving tanks up and down my street by any means) BUT to impose some sort of regulation requires the constitution to change....
And before it gets asked... Yes, I think the laws against "Hate Speech" are unconstitutional too... I do not like hate type speech, but at the same time, the constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
which means that if you want to in some way limit the rights of free speech, you have to amend the constitution to provide for those limitations....
************************************************** *****
Amendment II
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
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The amendment in question includes the phrase "shall not be infringed"...
Which means to me that you cannot make a law that regulates what arms a CITIZEN can carry... Unless you amend the constitution to say something along the lines of "within reasonable guidelines" or something....
Sarettah.. with all due respect, I reckon you could argue for hours on end the intent of the 2nd ammendment.. Wig's friend argues it clearly guarantees anyone's right to arm themselves anyway they like.. I didn't read it all but I doubt he is putting forward any argument about whether that is a good thing or not...
If he asserts the 2nd ammendment makes it impossible to regulate firearm ownership at all, surely that also should lead to the conclusion that the constitution requires changing... not that the current situation is right!
I respect the idea of the constitution protecting all.. but looking into the fishbowl from back here, the constitution appears to be being used against the good of the people on this issue.
Per the CDC's website, 436 children aged 0-14
That is a LOT less than I was given the impression were dieing.. but honestly, I still think that is a LOT of kids... Every single day in the US at least 1 family loses a child to a gun accident on those numbers.. I thought it was 10 a day.. so you may be able to see why I am wondering why American's dont talk about this as a prime issue in the gun debate.
1 other reason I relate to this issue is that at the time I grew up in Australia we had virtually no gun laws.. Everyone knew someone who had lost a friend or family member to a gun accident in those days... Mostly stuff like accidents climbing through fences with friends and shooting each other, or loaded guns in cars going off... My guess is that every American would know someone who has died in a gun accident.. BUT now if you ask a younger Australian about this... They wont know ANYONE that has died in a gun accident in most cases... and that change happened over less than 10-15 years. Governments fell over the issue and there is still an on-going fight to mark the lines but criminals dont rule the streets and the vast majority of people seem to support gun control leglislation now.. and close to Zero kids die of gun accidents every year... just like UK and NZ and even Canada I believe.
Anyway.. I am not an anti-gun nut.. I used to love hunting.. it just annoys me that a piece of paper, with arguable definition, that was even designed to be ammended as time went by.. is so often put up as an argument against even talking about sensible gun control.
Nobody liked having to give up the guns they had used legally for a lifetime here.. but 20/20 hindsight shows that most people adjusted a lot more easilly than expected... The Indonesians haven't come swarming upon us becasue we are "un-protected" and the country really is a safer place for it.
PornoDoggy
09-14-2003, 05:04 AM
In the United States there is more than enough hysteria and hot air surrounding the gun issue to account for a measurable percentage of global warming.
Look at some of the hyperbole floating around in this thread. The assertions of Internet constitutional scholars to the contrary, restrictions on what citizens can and can't carry are have been found to be in compliance with the Constitution, including the 2nd Ammendment - and we've been arguing about it since the Marshall started enforcing the laws when Dodge City started getting civilized.
Guns are an integral part of America, and inarguably put us in the position of superpower that we are today.
I couldn't have written a better example proving my point if I tried.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Sep 14 2003, 04:13 AM
Mornin' all!
Yes, kids (and adults) die in accidents with guns... as well as with household chemicals, bathtubs, power tools... the list goes on. People with guns and kids (or other people) in their house should do all they can to minimize the chance of anyone "accidentally" discharging a firearm. Keep it locked up, the ammo in a different location, and be sure that EVERYONE in the house is trained, or at the very least put through an age appropriate gun safety lesson. Again, education is key. Accidents will and do happen; and I'd love to see the statistics of those accidental gun deaths in the context of how many of the victims had been educated about gun safety.
"Country kids" are taught about guns from before they are physically able to use one, generally the accidents we hear about are suburban kids who're likely to have never held a real gun or been out hunting. I'd be interested in the related statistics along that vein.
I don't even own a gun right now (won't until my kid is old enough and physically able to fire one, and is properly trained to do so), but when I do, it's unlikely I'll be buying one for hunting. If I have one, it'll be one of the mankiller variety, because other than the pleasure of target practice, it'll have one use: protection. I'm not ashamed to admit that, nor should I have to be. It's what handguns are made for -- stopping an enemy; defined as "anyone threatening my life, liberty or property." I'm ready and willing to comply with the laws that allow me to do so. I have no argument with most of the laws currently on the books.
The debate will continue to rage on, I suppose. :agrin: I don't mind at all, since it means at least SOME Americans are giving a damn enough to educate themselves; if for no other reason than to argue!!!
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.