Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

commonsense · Mar 1, 2004, 04:09 pm

Please... No one should infer that I am a supporter of the NRA!!!!

It is totally misguided. It actually is the nation's largest and best funded gun legislation advocate group!!!

All one has to do is read the contemporary writings of all our Nation's Founders along with the individual states' constitutions at the time of confederation, along with the writings of all post-renaissance philosphers including Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" to understand how all their eternally wise understanding of human nature and the realization that since the invention of firearms, the only thing worse than them being in the hands of mankind...is that they be in the hands of only certain men... government agents, soldiers, barbarians or robbers.

The 1936 (C?) Supreme Court Decision banning "Tommy Guns" based on the logic that such weapons are not "regular militia issue" is so twisted!!!

The only reason it wasn't contested universally back then was because of the much-hyped "mob" crime wave of the time, itself also created by a bit of legislative folly called prohibition (although that WAS accomplished via constitutional provisions, it nonetheless was a disaster we still suffer from today, proving how essential and correct and eternal our Founder's philosophy of restricted govt is!!!

Anyway, that SC decision began the slippery slope of restrictions that the NRA supports today, lamely (and futily and dangerously to freedom) under the guise of "sportsmanship" "home protection" and "hunting" and "supporting the laws we have now" instead of the real reason all our founders gave for the preservation of the right to BEAR ARMS 24/7:
AS A NATURAL CHECK UPON TYRANNY!!! THE LAWS WE HAVE NOW ARE WRONG!!!

To all you NRA members that dutifully send in your checks with the thought that "WEll, the NRA is at least a voice we gun owners wouldn't otherwise have..." DO THE WORLD"S FUTURE FOR FREEDOM A FAVOR AND INSIST THEY CHANGE THEIR COMPLACENT "SELL-OUT" STANCE AND BEGIN CONTESTING THE SUPREME COURT!!!

Just like one of our fellow posters on this site said, "The police are the army of the rich" is why the Supreme Court Decision won't be challenged.
George Bush, earlier in his term initiated a committee to question the very core of what I'm talking about, which came to the same conclusions I do here, but of course the SC rejected re-opening the question, yet he expects "brownie points" from real thinking Americans.

Well, its not enough for me to be "marketed-to..." Bush, et al, are too invested in our sickening "War on Drugs" the BATF, and cops in general. I've got his number...and you should, too.

If I didn't live in a state where the electoral college were so dangerously close, I would vote libertarian...

OdieWon · Mar 1, 2004, 05:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)

Most ppl I know don't believe that civilians should have the right to possess firearms but I do think that all police in metropolitan areas should be armed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think this is an interesting comment. I'd like to clarify some of it if that is acceptable?

Are you saying that when armed men enter the home of someone, by force or by stealth, and intend to do harm to the inhabitants, women, children, whomever would be inside; that you would have them to simply lay down and accept rape, death, or even robbery rather than simply allowing them to be armed, and expecting them to act responsibly? ( I know run-on sentence from HELL)

Also, are you speculating that when "police" act inappropriately, including acts of murder, rape, or other deviant behavior (IT DOES HAPPEN from time to time) that a man or woman shouldn't be able to at the bare minimum, defend their LIFE with a firearm?

Is the European culture so wrung out that it's people have no desire to STAND UP as free people?

I don't mean to be offensive, so bear with me. I am not saying that everyone SHOULD have guns. By all means, I AM GOING TO HAVE THEM, with which to defend my wife and children with, and as a side note, to hunt with ( to feed them as well).

I don't put my opinions upon OTHER people, and I politely expect them to NOT FORCE THEM UPON ME.

Firearms, and a proper mindset are the tools that I use to ensure that the rights of those I protect are not trampled. These tools are no different than a CAR with which I could easily kill as many or more people with.

**Pooeypants** · Mar 1, 2004, 06:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Is the European culture so wrung out that it's people have no desire to STAND UP as free people?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Can you clarify what you mean? I don't feel oppressed right now, even though I have no easy access to firearms and nor do most of the thugs I see in the nearby city.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (OdieWon,)

Firearms, and a proper mindset are the tools that I use to ensure that the rights of those I protect are not trampled. These tools are no different than a CAR with which I could easily kill as many or more people with.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I didn't know that firearms also acted as a form of transport...

thrillofitall · Mar 1, 2004, 08:55 pm

my questions is what are people so worried about? If there were no guns, you wouldn't have to worry about the guy running around with a gun. and for the people who say it is self defence, that is why the police have guns. thats their job. it isnt your job to take the law into your own hands. lets the police/military protect you. i say make illegal all weapons except shotguns/rifles for those who use them for hunting. pistols and automatic/semi automatic rifles serve no point besides to hurt people.

OdieWon · Mar 1, 2004, 09:27 pm

Can you clarify what you mean? I don't feel oppressed right now, even though I have no easy access to firearms and nor do most of the thugs I see in the nearby city.

It's not that you ARE being oppressed, it's that you freely give up the RIGHT to choose. When a government decides to become MORE than a peace keeping authority, there ARE (although I do admit they are NOT frequent) times when one must take up arms to defend oneself. If the Gov't is the only source of POWER, what is there to keep them from slowly, gradually enslaving you? When we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.

I guess my point is that since we don't live in a perfect world, where police are all honorable and very prompt, some of us choose to take responsibility for our own safety AND act honorably at the same time.

QUOTE]
I didn't know that firearms also acted as a form of transport...[/quote]

The point was that either is simply an inanimate object that can be used for either good or evil.

I guess what baffles me is that some folks really believe that the police can protect them. I suppose if you are standing next to a cop when you are accosted, then perhaps the percentage of effectiveness would be very high. But in America the law does NOT require the police to protect anyone.

If we know that there are evil men that hurt people, why is it so hard to believe that someone like me, is only interested in protecting our family?

I've had EXTENSIVE training in the use of small arms, because I WAS a cop. I am no longer a cop, yet having seen what I have seen, and been involved in situations that taught me early on, that a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Another interesting point is this - if YOU (or anyone, respectfully of course) don't feel comfortable having one what gives YOU the right to legislate MY choosing to defend MY family? I am a relatively highly trained individual, and in my opinion, if I were to give all of my firearms over to someone, in surrender, I would be castrating my ability to have a CHOICE.

That's what it does for our family. It provides a CHOICE.

Please don't demonize me or others like me, for simply choosing to take a pro-active approach to this imperfect world we live in. I have NO interest in taking the life of another. BUT before I lay down and take a bullet, while my daughters and wife are raped and killed before my eyes, I would certainly dispatch a good number of foes without hesitation.

Dirty work such as this, at times requires tools of the trade.

Odie

thrillofitall · Mar 1, 2004, 09:41 pm

i just dont understand why anyone would need to own a weapon, besides if they wanted to hurt someone. if nobody owned weapons, everyone would be safer.

thrillofitall · Mar 1, 2004, 09:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (OdieWon)
Can you clarify what you mean? I don't feel oppressed right now, even though I have no easy access to firearms and nor do most of the thugs I see in the nearby city.

It's not that you ARE being oppressed, it's that you freely give up the RIGHT to choose. When a government decides to become MORE than a peace keeping authority, there ARE (although I do admit they are NOT frequent) times when one must take up arms to defend oneself. If the Gov't is the only source of POWER, what is there to keep them from slowly, gradually enslaving you? When we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.

I guess my point is that since we don't live in a perfect world, where police are all honorable and very prompt, some of us choose to take responsibility for our own safety AND act honorably at the same time.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

I didn't know that firearms also acted as a form of transport...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The point was that either is simply an inanimate object that can be used for either good or evil.

I guess what baffles me is that some folks really believe that the police can protect them. I suppose if you are standing next to a cop when you are accosted, then perhaps the percentage of effectiveness would be very high. But in America the law does NOT require the police to protect anyone.

If we know that there are evil men that hurt people, why is it so hard to believe that someone like me, is only interested in protecting our family?

I've had EXTENSIVE training in the use of small arms, because I WAS a cop. I am no longer a cop, yet having seen what I have seen, and been involved in situations that taught me early on, that a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Another interesting point is this - if YOU (or anyone, respectfully of course) don't feel comfortable having one what gives YOU the right to legislate MY choosing to defend MY family? I am a relatively highly trained individual, and in my opinion, if I were to give all of my firearms over to someone, in surrender, I would be castrating my ability to have a CHOICE.

That's what it does for our family. It provides a CHOICE.

Please don't demonize me or others like me, for simply choosing to take a pro-active approach to this imperfect world we live in. I have NO interest in taking the life of another. BUT before I lay down and take a bullet, while my daughters and wife are raped and killed before my eyes, I would certainly dispatch a good number of foes without hesitation.

Dirty work such as this, at times requires tools of the trade.

Odie<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

are you in favor of harder gun laws? so that it is harder for the "evil people" to get guns?

Poetic_Justice · Mar 2, 2004, 12:49 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,)

my questions is what are people so worried about? If there were no guns, you wouldn't have to worry about the guy running around with a gun. and for the people who say it is self defence, that is why the police have guns. thats their job. it isnt your job to take the law into your own hands. lets the police/military protect you. i say make illegal all weapons except shotguns/rifles for those who use them for hunting. pistols and automatic/semi automatic rifles serve no point besides to hurt people.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
There never will be no guns, as ou mention, police will have them, also criminals will have them, and the military will have them. So of course they will not be non-existent... Heck, rifles, pistols, etc. aren't even that hard to manufacture with the knowledge that a college student has nowadays, you can make them with stuff from Home Depot.

Perhaps because you are american, you stil lbeleive that police and the military are perfect. But any European could tell you about Hitler's police and military. Also, neither has instantaneous response. I've lived in crappier parts of my city, and when I was there, I never did without a knife, for the simple reason that if I didn't look dangerous, I would have been mugged, pushed around, etc. But you say we shouldn't take the law into our own hands, I ask you should we not take our defense in our own hands? Because that is what we are contemplating. When a cop is killed, all other cops band together to kill the perp, they have an unwritten code that says that the law isn't good enough in that case. The consequence is that perps know it, and therefore do not shoot cops if they can possibly avoid it. So how come its ok for cops, but not for us?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,)

i just dont understand why anyone would need to own a weapon, besides if they wanted to hurt someone. if nobody owned weapons, everyone would be safer.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Riiiiiight, ever heard of Switzerland? Guns don't make us safer or less safe, education does. Although I would contend that with proper education, weapons ownership makes a society safer, from crime, from foreign forces, and from tyranny.

OdieWon · Mar 2, 2004, 05:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,)
are you in favor of harder gun laws? so that it is harder for the "evil people" to get guns?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

NO, "evil people" typically ARE NOT getting their guns through legal methods anyway.

The only people that harder gun laws restrict are those that choose to abide by the law to begin with.

There are so many guns in circulation right now that it would be literally impossible to get them all. There are guns that are squirrelled away in places that people forget they are even there. Some folks have so many they can't remember them all off the top of their head.

The point is not about HAVING the guns, it's about EXPECTING EACH OTHER TO ACT RESPONSIBLY.

The only laws that should be harder, should be the PUNISHMENTS for acting irresponsibly or out of malice. If someone commits a crime of any sorts, using a weapon of any sort it should automatically be a more severe sentence. I mean MUCH MORE severe.

The judicial system is trying to deal with issues like this, but it is overwhelmed in my opinion. There are instances in some states where a guy can rape your daughter, and get off easier than if he sold her some grass. Where is the logic in THAT?

I don't want to take the law into my own hands, but the law does not have provisions for protecting my family from assault or harm. Only if a law enforcement officer witnesses the event, or if he has "empirical knowledge" that it WILL occur is he required to take action, IF and only IF it is reasonable for him to assume that he will be able to stop the action.

I simply want an insurance policy that I have control of. It is my right as an American, and if America ever falls, I'll be glad I did, even more so, because who knows what unreasonable heirarchy, or dictatorship might come along and think they can use us all as slaves? If we all are unarmed, the journey from citizen to slave is a slippery slope and a short trip.

Odie

thrillofitall · Mar 2, 2004, 02:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (OdieWon,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,)
are you in favor of harder gun laws? so that it is harder for the "evil people" to get guns?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

NO, "evil people" typically ARE NOT getting their guns through legal methods anyway.

The only people that harder gun laws restrict are those that choose to abide by the law to begin with.

There are so many guns in circulation right now that it would be literally impossible to get them all. There are guns that are squirrelled away in places that people forget they are even there. Some folks have so many they can't remember them all off the top of their head.

The point is not about HAVING the guns, it's about EXPECTING EACH OTHER TO ACT RESPONSIBLY.

The only laws that should be harder, should be the PUNISHMENTS for acting irresponsibly or out of malice. If someone commits a crime of any sorts, using a weapon of any sort it should automatically be a more severe sentence. I mean MUCH MORE severe.

The judicial system is trying to deal with issues like this, but it is overwhelmed in my opinion. There are instances in some states where a guy can rape your daughter, and get off easier than if he sold her some grass. Where is the logic in THAT?

I don't want to take the law into my own hands, but the law does not have provisions for protecting my family from assault or harm. Only if a law enforcement officer witnesses the event, or if he has "empirical knowledge" that it WILL occur is he required to take action, IF and only IF it is reasonable for him to assume that he will be able to stop the action.

I simply want an insurance policy that I have control of. It is my right as an American, and if America ever falls, I'll be glad I did, even more so, because who knows what unreasonable heirarchy, or dictatorship might come along and think they can use us all as slaves? If we all are unarmed, the journey from citizen to slave is a slippery slope and a short trip.

Odie<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

so if there are too many guns in circulation and it would be hard to get rid of them all... we just shouldnt try at all? even though it might be the right thing? thats just lazy.

increasing the punishments won't change anything either. when someone shoots another person and is convincted, your going to be doing some serious time/life. that doesnt change the fact that guns in america kill more people than guns anywhere else. Why do you think America has this problem?

im not saying guns are bad. but there is obviously a serious problem if there is all this violence... people shooting eachother.. killings.. the problem has to be addressed somehow, and increasing the penalties won't stop someone if they want to kill another person. if a person has their mind set on killing someone, they arent going to think about the consiquences. they are going to think about how to escape the police.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 2, 2004, 03:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
so if there are too many guns in circulation and it would be hard to get rid of them all... we just shouldnt try at all? even though it might be the right thing? thats just lazy.

increasing the punishments won't change anything either. when someone shoots another person and is convincted, your going to be doing some serious time/life. that doesnt change the fact that guns in america kill more people than guns anywhere else. Why do you think America has this problem?

im not saying guns are bad. but there is obviously a serious problem if there is all this violence... people shooting eachother.. killings.. the problem has to be addressed somehow, and increasing the penalties won't stop someone if they want to kill another person. if a person has their mind set on killing someone, they arent going to think about the consiquences. they are going to think about how to escape the police. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The reasons behind gun violence in America are many, simply their ownership of guns is not the only reason, or the major reason. Neither is their frontierland type geography, Switzerland and Canada both have mroe guns per capita than the states, and yet we have much smaller rates of accidental and homicidal gun death(Although in Canada we tend to make up for it with stabbings). Canada is much more spread out than the US, so that can't be the reason, and in Switzerland everyone owns an assault rifle, so that can't be the problem either...

It's a mater of education, in Canada most guns are owned by eople in rural areas who are taught by their parents about how to use a weapon properly. In switerland they are owned by ex-military personnel who have also learned how to properly care for, handle, and use a gun... I would garner that the amin cause behind the heavy amonuts of gun violence in the US is because most people who own guns int he US are urban dwellers who buy a gun to kill with, they have not been educated properly in the use of the gun, and therefore use it improperly, with lethal results.

From Freedom, Prosperity
Dave

OdieWon · Mar 2, 2004, 06:43 pm

Peace and respect for all.

My final response to this thread contains zero quotes because it is obvious that we do not agree, and unlike all of the other gun owners of America I am not pursuing a conflict with anyone. Note - sarcasm, mild sarcasm, but sarcasm nonetheless.

Honestly, though, I believe that if someone is bent on killing another, the tool of choice is simply a convenience and makes little difference. Example, someone like myself who chooses to be proactive about these things, would be more than well armed with an edged weapon. In fact, I choose to THINK like a person that is "alert" and watchful. This helps me to be "armed" even when I don't have my firearm ON my person.

If there were a magical way to eliminate ALL firearms, and I would still be allowed to hunt by some other means that was realistic, yet NO PERSON would have guns including the Police (if there were NO guns, why would a police officer NEED one?) then sure I'd go for that.

The "lazy" comment isn't functional either. The reason for this is that sometimes tasks are too big to swallow all at once. Simply outlawing different types of guns is only going to make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Because they KNOW that if the Jews hadn't acted so passively when this very same thing happened to them, they'd have SMOTE the entire holocaust earlier on.

In America we are guaranteed these rights. Many people including Demoncrats believe that we should NOT have them. Although they are politicians, and anyone who thinks for themselves knows that politicians ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED. They make their very living, by appealing to as many people as possible without having to ever commit to anything.

What we're really talking about here is commitment. I am more committed to my family, than society or even America. If we could miraculously make all the guns disappear, then that would be GREAT. I'd become a bowhunter (surely you don't want to outlaw those too?).

Since this is NOT a possiblity, it's not worth discussing.

In this country we have whored ourselves out to entertainment, and self satisfaction for years. Those like me who have a real interest in the CHARACTER of people are a dying breed.

Now, all that being said, I do believe that we are headed toward more gun legislation, and I do believe it is unavoidable. Our country is morally corrupt and financially bankrupt. America has bought into the "world trade" business for so long, without buying into the long term planning that goes with it. We waste MILLIONS of dollars on issues that are outdated and that should have been squelched years ago. We have purchased a "false hope" that benefits our country NOTHING. The only reason we have allies in the world is because we have the "appearance" of power and money. Sure Americans are "richer" (a loosely used term) than most of the world, but they squander it on meaningless gratifications.

I don't see HOW American (key point - INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT) could be disarmed, without placing ourselves in danger.

So long as there are weapons of any type that are regularly used to control people who are otherwise peaceful, self respecting men and women will be standing up for themselves choosing NOT to be subjugated.

The whole "All men are created equal" thing stands here. When some choose to up the ante, you either have to "call" or "fold".

Respectful of others right to be unarmed...

Odie

damnrad · Mar 2, 2004, 07:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
guns? every american should be armed with a bazooka...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am. But I still don't understand how bubble gum is going to make me safe.

damnrad · Mar 2, 2004, 07:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Just wondering, could an American explain to me why allowing everyone to have guns is a good thing?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

"allowing everyone to have guns" Perhaps the question that should be asked is, by what lawful authority does "government" presume to regulate the people's natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms? If we are going to believe the illusion that "government" is the agent/servant of the sovereign people, then that "agent" cannot lawfully exercise powers that were never delegated. All sovereignity resides in "the people", when "civil society" was formed, the sovereign people delegated a limited portion of their power to their agent/government to perform certain, limited functions. Today in the united States of America we have a government that far exceeds its delegated authority, it's all ass backwards! The agent/servant has now become the master.
"allowing everyone to have guns"? WTF, why do the American people allow their government to violate their natural, inherent and inalienable rights? On other boards I have posted all 50 State's Bill of Rights, I would suggest that everyone do a google search, look up all 50 State's Bill of Rights, print them off, read each and every one of them, [/b]read them and weep![b] How could we have strayed so far from the fundamental principles that this country was supposed to be founded on? Sad, truely sad! Americans today are satisfied with the illusion of freedom, after isn't it just as good as freedom itself?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your question: 'by what lawful authority does "government" presume to regulate the people's natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms?'

Answers:
(1) There is no 'natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms.' Arms, guns, are a product of human society, and a fairly-recent product at that. They are not natural things that humans have a natural right to possess.
(2) Humans do have a 'natural, inherent and inalienable right to' self defense, defense of loved ones, defense of their society, and so on. But that may or may not involve guns. In fact, the question here is whether the widespread ownership of guns, particularly of automatic weapons, adds to self defense more than it subtracts from it.
(3) Government derives the right to regulate guns, and other things, on the basis of providing for the common good, providing for peace and security, and upholding lawful process. But again, it's a question as to whether guns add to such things more than they subtract from them. But note that the issue here is 'regulate,' not 'prohibit' -- even if guns are useful or necessary to securing these outcomes, government regulation of guns may also be necessary to securing them.
(4) The Second Amendment is, as is much of the Bill of Rights, very vague. What it means is subject to interpretation, and to reinterpretation as society changes.

commonsense · Mar 2, 2004, 08:49 pm

Our Founding Fathers are history's keenest observers of human nature and most transcendental philosophers.

They have most clearly and honestly identified the source of all mankind's prior and future suffering:
Goverments and abuse of power.

People are programmed by instinct and self-preservation to be more good than evil (witness any "hidden camera" show in which even the seemingly toughest and self-concerned dudes, even of "historically averse" races, class, or "types" always go way out of their way to be decent even in the most trying or embarrassing of social situations, i.e. "please pull-up my pants" etc

But it is only when power is institutionalized, either by monarchical prestige, family privelege, bureaucratic preference, pinning on a badge, or uniform that is man's evil given fertile ground in which to flourish

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS' WORDS AND INTENTIONS AND PHILOSOPHY WERE NOT VAGUE!!!!!

AND THEY ARE ETERNALLY WISE AND THE WORLD'S FIRST AND ONLY LASTING MEANS TO DEAL WITH HUMAN NATURE AND PROMISE MAN'S BEST HOPE FOR REAL ASCENDANCY

IT IS THE ONLY SINCERE AND MOST HOPEFUL WAY FOR SOCIETY TO FLOURISH, AVOID REVOLUTION, AND PROVIDES MANKIND'S ONLY HOPE FOR REAL SOCIETAL EVOLUTION

READ THE FOUNDING FATHERS CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES' CONSTITUTIONS, AND THE WORDS OF THOMAS PAINE, AT LEAST THE PAGES ON GOVERNMENT IN HIS "RIGHTS OF MAN"

EVERY SINGLE SOCIAL PROBLEM WE FACE IN THE U.S. AND THE WORLD TODAY, AND EVERY INTERNATIONAL POLICY PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY....

IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE HAVE STRAYED FROM THIS CORE PHILOSOPHY:

THAT ALL INSTITUTIONAL POWER CORRUPTS, THAT WHEN MEN ARE EQUAL IN THEIR RIGHT TO BE ARMED, CRIME, OPPRESSION AND TYRANNY DIMINISHES, AND THAT WHEN MEN ARE UNENCUMBERED AS COMPLETELY AS POSSIBLE FROM TAXES WHILE BEING UNRESTRICTED IN THE PURSUIT OF THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL INGENUITY, THEY PRODUCE IN ABUNDANCE EVERY INDUSTRIAL, TECHNOLOGICAL AND HUMANITARIAN MARVEL IMAGINABLE, AND THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE CALLED UPON TO FUNCTION IN THE MOST RESTRICTED WAY TO DO WHAT INDIVIDUALS CANNOT DO FOR THEMSELVES:
NATIONAL DEFENSE, MINTING OF COINS AND CURRENCY, AN HONEST JUDICIARY

commonsense · Mar 2, 2004, 09:15 pm

The reason for U.S. gun injury and death statistics are higher than most countries:

Our self-serving bureaucrats, politicians and many armed agencies perpetuate the myth, both at home and internationally, that U.S. crime rates are high, creating and exploiting fear to cultivate votes and hiring more lifelong jobs, which causes a small number of "trigger-happy" injuries

Our self-serving judicial system and prison industry benefits from "cycling" the same cadre of criminals around and around through the system who, thanks to our outstanding emergency trauma hospital care, get to become gunshot statistics while they also get to live again and again, to inflate statistics per capita many times. This alone accounts for substantially increasing the actual numbers of people harmed by firearms in a year.

Most of our shootings and deaths are caused by the same repeating cohort of gang and drug-gang members, multiplying crime statistics and gunshot stats that do not significantly affect the quality of life for the vast population of Americans

I could go on, but I'm tired. You sheep wear me out. Follow the "money" whenever you question a social condition. Our government approaches 50% the national economy. Thomas Jefferson said it is (lamentably) so that "Government Gains, Liberty Wanes" We have too many politicians exploiting fear, pencil-pushers securing their socially destructive, morally corrupting livelihoods, and waaayyyy too many tin-starred trigger-happy yahoo's preaching law, order, and safety while they stuff themselves with donuts, hopefully one day to the point they no longer fit in their crown vics so they can't shake down the driving public in a futile attempt to pay for a mere fraction of what we own their fat asses and their expesnsive equipment for the rest of their corrupt destructive self-serving lives. Just hang around someday at the Dunkin Donuts when they don't know you're listening and hear the way they talk about mere "civilians", their bread and butter.... See then if you don't see our Founders' wisdom they clearly wrote about in many places of the societal bebefit of an armed populace over these skin-headed parasites!

SeanWah · Mar 2, 2004, 10:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There is no 'natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms.' Arms, guns, are a product of human society, and a fairly-recent product at that. They are not natural things that humans have a natural right to possess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
(1) The statement above has little to do so much with the guns as much as the ability to exercise the right, which guns allow: defense of the self and of the property. There is no right to bear arms, but there is a right to bear arms in self-defense. You addressed this point later.
(2) Fairly recent? Muskets first emerged in the 1400's....

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Humans do have a 'natural, inherent and inalienable right to' self defense, defense of loved ones, defense of their society, and so on. But that may or may not involve guns. In fact, the question here is whether the widespread ownership of guns, particularly of automatic weapons, adds to self defense more than it subtracts from it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
If the presence of guns facilitates one's ability to act in self-defense or defense of family or property, then no conditions can theoretically exist whereby their presence subtracts from it.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 2, 2004, 10:51 pm

I really don't see what it matters what the founding fathers said, they weren't infallible. Whether they were for or against gun control is pretty irrevelant, they were just men, like the rest of us.

I'd like to know how gun control advocates explain the statistics in places like Switzerland and the Midwest, which have extremely high gun ownership per capita numbers and extremely low gun death(saccidental or homicidal).

And for those who advocate gun access, I agree with you. But don't you think we should combine that with a push for more gun education?

OdieWon · Mar 3, 2004, 06:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
And for those who advocate gun access, I agree with you. But don't you think we should combine that with a push for more gun education?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

YES, more education would be a great way to work on this problem. I personally started this with my family first.

Even if someone chooses NOT to have a gun, EVERYONE should know how to handle one safely, even if they don't plan to use one. You never know when you might encounter one, and need to handle it safely even if only to unload it without shooting your foot off.

It's like learning to handle a kitchen knife. As a child parents teach us to be careful when cutting up vegetables and when washing them in the dishwater. It is easy to cut yourself if you don't THINK AHEAD.

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 3, 2004, 08:32 am

1) If people have the right to self defense, then they have the right to decide what to use in order to secure that right.

2) People employed by the state have no extra right to have defensive weapons than the rest of us.

1 and 2 rule out gun control on the part of the state.

--Jackney Sneeb

Mar 1, 2004, 04:09 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 333	Please... No one should infer that I am a supporter of the NRA!!!! It is totally misguided. It actually is the nation's largest and best funded gun legislation advocate group!!! All one has to do is read the contemporary writings of all our Nation's Founders along with the individual states' constitutions at the time of confederation, along with the writings of all post-renaissance philosphers including Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" to understand how all their eternally wise understanding of human nature and the realization that since the invention of firearms, the only thing worse than them being in the hands of mankind...is that they be in the hands of only certain men... government agents, soldiers, barbarians or robbers. The 1936 (C?) Supreme Court Decision banning "Tommy Guns" based on the logic that such weapons are not "regular militia issue" is so twisted!!! The only reason it wasn't contested universally back then was because of the much-hyped "mob" crime wave of the time, itself also created by a bit of legislative folly called prohibition (although that WAS accomplished via constitutional provisions, it nonetheless was a disaster we still suffer from today, proving how essential and correct and eternal our Founder's philosophy of restricted govt is!!! Anyway, that SC decision began the slippery slope of restrictions that the NRA supports today, lamely (and futily and dangerously to freedom) under the guise of "sportsmanship" "home protection" and "hunting" and "supporting the laws we have now" instead of the real reason all our founders gave for the preservation of the right to BEAR ARMS 24/7: AS A NATURAL CHECK UPON TYRANNY!!! THE LAWS WE HAVE NOW ARE WRONG!!! To all you NRA members that dutifully send in your checks with the thought that "WEll, the NRA is at least a voice we gun owners wouldn't otherwise have..." DO THE WORLD"S FUTURE FOR FREEDOM A FAVOR AND INSIST THEY CHANGE THEIR COMPLACENT "SELL-OUT" STANCE AND BEGIN CONTESTING THE SUPREME COURT!!! Just like one of our fellow posters on this site said, "The police are the army of the rich" is why the Supreme Court Decision won't be challenged. George Bush, earlier in his term initiated a committee to question the very core of what I'm talking about, which came to the same conclusions I do here, but of course the SC rejected re-opening the question, yet he expects "brownie points" from real thinking Americans. Well, its not enough for me to be "marketed-to..." Bush, et al, are too invested in our sickening "War on Drugs" the BATF, and cops in general. I've got his number...and you should, too. If I didn't live in a state where the electoral college were so dangerously close, I would vote libertarian... The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Mar 1, 2004, 05:59 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
OdieWon Sedimentary Rock Location: South Dakota Posts: 10	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) Most ppl I know don't believe that civilians should have the right to possess firearms but I do think that all police in metropolitan areas should be armed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think this is an interesting comment. I'd like to clarify some of it if that is acceptable? Are you saying that when armed men enter the home of someone, by force or by stealth, and intend to do harm to the inhabitants, women, children, whomever would be inside; that you would have them to simply lay down and accept rape, death, or even robbery rather than simply allowing them to be armed, and expecting them to act responsibly? ( I know run-on sentence from HELL) Also, are you speculating that when "police" act inappropriately, including acts of murder, rape, or other deviant behavior (IT DOES HAPPEN from time to time) that a man or woman shouldn't be able to at the bare minimum, defend their LIFE with a firearm? Is the European culture so wrung out that it's people have no desire to STAND UP as free people? I don't mean to be offensive, so bear with me. I am not saying that everyone SHOULD have guns. By all means, I AM GOING TO HAVE THEM, with which to defend my wife and children with, and as a side note, to hunt with ( to feed them as well). I don't put my opinions upon OTHER people, and I politely expect them to NOT FORCE THEM UPON ME. Firearms, and a proper mindset are the tools that I use to ensure that the rights of those I protect are not trampled. These tools are no different than a CAR with which I could easily kill as many or more people with.

Mar 1, 2004, 06:04 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,546	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Is the European culture so wrung out that it's people have no desire to STAND UP as free people? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Can you clarify what you mean? I don't feel oppressed right now, even though I have no easy access to firearms and nor do most of the thugs I see in the nearby city. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (OdieWon,) Firearms, and a proper mindset are the tools that I use to ensure that the rights of those I protect are not trampled. These tools are no different than a CAR with which I could easily kill as many or more people with.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I didn't know that firearms also acted as a form of transport... War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Mar 1, 2004, 09:45 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
thrillofitall Sedimentary Rock Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 20	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (OdieWon) Can you clarify what you mean? I don't feel oppressed right now, even though I have no easy access to firearms and nor do most of the thugs I see in the nearby city. It's not that you ARE being oppressed, it's that you freely give up the RIGHT to choose. When a government decides to become MORE than a peace keeping authority, there ARE (although I do admit they are NOT frequent) times when one must take up arms to defend oneself. If the Gov't is the only source of POWER, what is there to keep them from slowly, gradually enslaving you? When we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it. I guess my point is that since we don't live in a perfect world, where police are all honorable and very prompt, some of us choose to take responsibility for our own safety AND act honorably at the same time. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I didn't know that firearms also acted as a form of transport...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The point was that either is simply an inanimate object that can be used for either good or evil. I guess what baffles me is that some folks really believe that the police can protect them. I suppose if you are standing next to a cop when you are accosted, then perhaps the percentage of effectiveness would be very high. But in America the law does NOT require the police to protect anyone. If we know that there are evil men that hurt people, why is it so hard to believe that someone like me, is only interested in protecting our family? I've had EXTENSIVE training in the use of small arms, because I WAS a cop. I am no longer a cop, yet having seen what I have seen, and been involved in situations that taught me early on, that a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. Another interesting point is this - if YOU (or anyone, respectfully of course) don't feel comfortable having one what gives YOU the right to legislate MY choosing to defend MY family? I am a relatively highly trained individual, and in my opinion, if I were to give all of my firearms over to someone, in surrender, I would be castrating my ability to have a CHOICE. That's what it does for our family. It provides a CHOICE. Please don't demonize me or others like me, for simply choosing to take a pro-active approach to this imperfect world we live in. I have NO interest in taking the life of another. BUT before I lay down and take a bullet, while my daughters and wife are raped and killed before my eyes, I would certainly dispatch a good number of foes without hesitation. Dirty work such as this, at times requires tools of the trade. Odie<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> are you in favor of harder gun laws? so that it is harder for the "evil people" to get guns?

Mar 2, 2004, 12:49 am	#68 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,) my questions is what are people so worried about? If there were no guns, you wouldn't have to worry about the guy running around with a gun. and for the people who say it is self defence, that is why the police have guns. thats their job. it isnt your job to take the law into your own hands. lets the police/military protect you. i say make illegal all weapons except shotguns/rifles for those who use them for hunting. pistols and automatic/semi automatic rifles serve no point besides to hurt people. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There never will be no guns, as ou mention, police will have them, also criminals will have them, and the military will have them. So of course they will not be non-existent... Heck, rifles, pistols, etc. aren't even that hard to manufacture with the knowledge that a college student has nowadays, you can make them with stuff from Home Depot. Perhaps because you are american, you stil lbeleive that police and the military are perfect. But any European could tell you about Hitler's police and military. Also, neither has instantaneous response. I've lived in crappier parts of my city, and when I was there, I never did without a knife, for the simple reason that if I didn't look dangerous, I would have been mugged, pushed around, etc. But you say we shouldn't take the law into our own hands, I ask you should we not take our defense in our own hands? Because that is what we are contemplating. When a cop is killed, all other cops band together to kill the perp, they have an unwritten code that says that the law isn't good enough in that case. The consequence is that perps know it, and therefore do not shoot cops if they can possibly avoid it. So how come its ok for cops, but not for us? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,) i just dont understand why anyone would need to own a weapon, besides if they wanted to hurt someone. if nobody owned weapons, everyone would be safer. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Riiiiiight, ever heard of Switzerland? Guns don't make us safer or less safe, education does. Although I would contend that with proper education, weapons ownership makes a society safer, from crime, from foreign forces, and from tyranny.

Mar 1, 2004, 08:55 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
thrillofitall Sedimentary Rock Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 20	my questions is what are people so worried about? If there were no guns, you wouldn't have to worry about the guy running around with a gun. and for the people who say it is self defence, that is why the police have guns. thats their job. it isnt your job to take the law into your own hands. lets the police/military protect you. i say make illegal all weapons except shotguns/rifles for those who use them for hunting. pistols and automatic/semi automatic rifles serve no point besides to hurt people.

Mar 1, 2004, 09:27 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
OdieWon Sedimentary Rock Location: South Dakota Posts: 10	Can you clarify what you mean? I don't feel oppressed right now, even though I have no easy access to firearms and nor do most of the thugs I see in the nearby city. It's not that you ARE being oppressed, it's that you freely give up the RIGHT to choose. When a government decides to become MORE than a peace keeping authority, there ARE (although I do admit they are NOT frequent) times when one must take up arms to defend oneself. If the Gov't is the only source of POWER, what is there to keep them from slowly, gradually enslaving you? When we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it. I guess my point is that since we don't live in a perfect world, where police are all honorable and very prompt, some of us choose to take responsibility for our own safety AND act honorably at the same time. QUOTE] I didn't know that firearms also acted as a form of transport...[/quote] The point was that either is simply an inanimate object that can be used for either good or evil. I guess what baffles me is that some folks really believe that the police can protect them. I suppose if you are standing next to a cop when you are accosted, then perhaps the percentage of effectiveness would be very high. But in America the law does NOT require the police to protect anyone. If we know that there are evil men that hurt people, why is it so hard to believe that someone like me, is only interested in protecting our family? I've had EXTENSIVE training in the use of small arms, because I WAS a cop. I am no longer a cop, yet having seen what I have seen, and been involved in situations that taught me early on, that a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. Another interesting point is this - if YOU (or anyone, respectfully of course) don't feel comfortable having one what gives YOU the right to legislate MY choosing to defend MY family? I am a relatively highly trained individual, and in my opinion, if I were to give all of my firearms over to someone, in surrender, I would be castrating my ability to have a CHOICE. That's what it does for our family. It provides a CHOICE. Please don't demonize me or others like me, for simply choosing to take a pro-active approach to this imperfect world we live in. I have NO interest in taking the life of another. BUT before I lay down and take a bullet, while my daughters and wife are raped and killed before my eyes, I would certainly dispatch a good number of foes without hesitation. Dirty work such as this, at times requires tools of the trade. Odie

Mar 1, 2004, 09:41 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
thrillofitall Sedimentary Rock Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 20	i just dont understand why anyone would need to own a weapon, besides if they wanted to hurt someone. if nobody owned weapons, everyone would be safer.

Mar 2, 2004, 05:54 am	#69 (permalink) (top)
OdieWon Sedimentary Rock Location: South Dakota Posts: 10	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,) are you in favor of harder gun laws? so that it is harder for the "evil people" to get guns?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> NO, "evil people" typically ARE NOT getting their guns through legal methods anyway. The only people that harder gun laws restrict are those that choose to abide by the law to begin with. There are so many guns in circulation right now that it would be literally impossible to get them all. There are guns that are squirrelled away in places that people forget they are even there. Some folks have so many they can't remember them all off the top of their head. The point is not about HAVING the guns, it's about EXPECTING EACH OTHER TO ACT RESPONSIBLY. The only laws that should be harder, should be the PUNISHMENTS for acting irresponsibly or out of malice. If someone commits a crime of any sorts, using a weapon of any sort it should automatically be a more severe sentence. I mean MUCH MORE severe. The judicial system is trying to deal with issues like this, but it is overwhelmed in my opinion. There are instances in some states where a guy can rape your daughter, and get off easier than if he sold her some grass. Where is the logic in THAT? I don't want to take the law into my own hands, but the law does not have provisions for protecting my family from assault or harm. Only if a law enforcement officer witnesses the event, or if he has "empirical knowledge" that it WILL occur is he required to take action, IF and only IF it is reasonable for him to assume that he will be able to stop the action. I simply want an insurance policy that I have control of. It is my right as an American, and if America ever falls, I'll be glad I did, even more so, because who knows what unreasonable heirarchy, or dictatorship might come along and think they can use us all as slaves? If we all are unarmed, the journey from citizen to slave is a slippery slope and a short trip. Odie

Mar 2, 2004, 02:29 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
thrillofitall Sedimentary Rock Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 20	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (OdieWon,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,) are you in favor of harder gun laws? so that it is harder for the "evil people" to get guns?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> NO, "evil people" typically ARE NOT getting their guns through legal methods anyway. The only people that harder gun laws restrict are those that choose to abide by the law to begin with. There are so many guns in circulation right now that it would be literally impossible to get them all. There are guns that are squirrelled away in places that people forget they are even there. Some folks have so many they can't remember them all off the top of their head. The point is not about HAVING the guns, it's about EXPECTING EACH OTHER TO ACT RESPONSIBLY. The only laws that should be harder, should be the PUNISHMENTS for acting irresponsibly or out of malice. If someone commits a crime of any sorts, using a weapon of any sort it should automatically be a more severe sentence. I mean MUCH MORE severe. The judicial system is trying to deal with issues like this, but it is overwhelmed in my opinion. There are instances in some states where a guy can rape your daughter, and get off easier than if he sold her some grass. Where is the logic in THAT? I don't want to take the law into my own hands, but the law does not have provisions for protecting my family from assault or harm. Only if a law enforcement officer witnesses the event, or if he has "empirical knowledge" that it WILL occur is he required to take action, IF and only IF it is reasonable for him to assume that he will be able to stop the action. I simply want an insurance policy that I have control of. It is my right as an American, and if America ever falls, I'll be glad I did, even more so, because who knows what unreasonable heirarchy, or dictatorship might come along and think they can use us all as slaves? If we all are unarmed, the journey from citizen to slave is a slippery slope and a short trip. Odie<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> so if there are too many guns in circulation and it would be hard to get rid of them all... we just shouldnt try at all? even though it might be the right thing? thats just lazy. increasing the punishments won't change anything either. when someone shoots another person and is convincted, your going to be doing some serious time/life. that doesnt change the fact that guns in america kill more people than guns anywhere else. Why do you think America has this problem? im not saying guns are bad. but there is obviously a serious problem if there is all this violence... people shooting eachother.. killings.. the problem has to be addressed somehow, and increasing the penalties won't stop someone if they want to kill another person. if a person has their mind set on killing someone, they arent going to think about the consiquences. they are going to think about how to escape the police.

Mar 2, 2004, 03:18 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by so if there are too many guns in circulation and it would be hard to get rid of them all... we just shouldnt try at all? even though it might be the right thing? thats just lazy. increasing the punishments won't change anything either. when someone shoots another person and is convincted, your going to be doing some serious time/life. that doesnt change the fact that guns in america kill more people than guns anywhere else. Why do you think America has this problem? im not saying guns are bad. but there is obviously a serious problem if there is all this violence... people shooting eachother.. killings.. the problem has to be addressed somehow, and increasing the penalties won't stop someone if they want to kill another person. if a person has their mind set on killing someone, they arent going to think about the consiquences. they are going to think about how to escape the police. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The reasons behind gun violence in America are many, simply their ownership of guns is not the only reason, or the major reason. Neither is their frontierland type geography, Switzerland and Canada both have mroe guns per capita than the states, and yet we have much smaller rates of accidental and homicidal gun death(Although in Canada we tend to make up for it with stabbings). Canada is much more spread out than the US, so that can't be the reason, and in Switzerland everyone owns an assault rifle, so that can't be the problem either... It's a mater of education, in Canada most guns are owned by eople in rural areas who are taught by their parents about how to use a weapon properly. In switerland they are owned by ex-military personnel who have also learned how to properly care for, handle, and use a gun... I would garner that the amin cause behind the heavy amonuts of gun violence in the US is because most people who own guns int he US are urban dwellers who buy a gun to kill with, they have not been educated properly in the use of the gun, and therefore use it improperly, with lethal results. From Freedom, Prosperity Dave

Mar 2, 2004, 06:43 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
OdieWon Sedimentary Rock Location: South Dakota Posts: 10	Peace and respect for all. My final response to this thread contains zero quotes because it is obvious that we do not agree, and unlike all of the other gun owners of America I am not pursuing a conflict with anyone. Note - sarcasm, mild sarcasm, but sarcasm nonetheless. Honestly, though, I believe that if someone is bent on killing another, the tool of choice is simply a convenience and makes little difference. Example, someone like myself who chooses to be proactive about these things, would be more than well armed with an edged weapon. In fact, I choose to THINK like a person that is "alert" and watchful. This helps me to be "armed" even when I don't have my firearm ON my person. If there were a magical way to eliminate ALL firearms, and I would still be allowed to hunt by some other means that was realistic, yet NO PERSON would have guns including the Police (if there were NO guns, why would a police officer NEED one?) then sure I'd go for that. The "lazy" comment isn't functional either. The reason for this is that sometimes tasks are too big to swallow all at once. Simply outlawing different types of guns is only going to make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Because they KNOW that if the Jews hadn't acted so passively when this very same thing happened to them, they'd have SMOTE the entire holocaust earlier on. In America we are guaranteed these rights. Many people including Demoncrats believe that we should NOT have them. Although they are politicians, and anyone who thinks for themselves knows that politicians ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED. They make their very living, by appealing to as many people as possible without having to ever commit to anything. What we're really talking about here is commitment. I am more committed to my family, than society or even America. If we could miraculously make all the guns disappear, then that would be GREAT. I'd become a bowhunter (surely you don't want to outlaw those too?). Since this is NOT a possiblity, it's not worth discussing. In this country we have whored ourselves out to entertainment, and self satisfaction for years. Those like me who have a real interest in the CHARACTER of people are a dying breed. Now, all that being said, I do believe that we are headed toward more gun legislation, and I do believe it is unavoidable. Our country is morally corrupt and financially bankrupt. America has bought into the "world trade" business for so long, without buying into the long term planning that goes with it. We waste MILLIONS of dollars on issues that are outdated and that should have been squelched years ago. We have purchased a "false hope" that benefits our country NOTHING. The only reason we have allies in the world is because we have the "appearance" of power and money. Sure Americans are "richer" (a loosely used term) than most of the world, but they squander it on meaningless gratifications. I don't see HOW American (key point - INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT) could be disarmed, without placing ourselves in danger. So long as there are weapons of any type that are regularly used to control people who are otherwise peaceful, self respecting men and women will be standing up for themselves choosing NOT to be subjugated. The whole "All men are created equal" thing stands here. When some choose to up the ante, you either have to "call" or "fold". Respectful of others right to be unarmed... Odie

Mar 2, 2004, 07:13 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) guns? every american should be armed with a bazooka...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am. But I still don't understand how bubble gum is going to make me safe.

Mar 2, 2004, 07:22 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) Just wondering, could an American explain to me why allowing everyone to have guns is a good thing?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "allowing everyone to have guns" Perhaps the question that should be asked is, by what lawful authority does "government" presume to regulate the people's natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms? If we are going to believe the illusion that "government" is the agent/servant of the sovereign people, then that "agent" cannot lawfully exercise powers that were never delegated. All sovereignity resides in "the people", when "civil society" was formed, the sovereign people delegated a limited portion of their power to their agent/government to perform certain, limited functions. Today in the united States of America we have a government that far exceeds its delegated authority, it's all ass backwards! The agent/servant has now become the master. "allowing everyone to have guns"? WTF, why do the American people allow their government to violate their natural, inherent and inalienable rights? On other boards I have posted all 50 State's Bill of Rights, I would suggest that everyone do a google search, look up all 50 State's Bill of Rights, print them off, read each and every one of them, [/b]read them and weep![b] How could we have strayed so far from the fundamental principles that this country was supposed to be founded on? Sad, truely sad! Americans today are satisfied with the illusion of freedom, after isn't it just as good as freedom itself?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your question: 'by what lawful authority does "government" presume to regulate the people's natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms?' Answers: (1) There is no 'natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms.' Arms, guns, are a product of human society, and a fairly-recent product at that. They are not natural things that humans have a natural right to possess. (2) Humans do have a 'natural, inherent and inalienable right to' self defense, defense of loved ones, defense of their society, and so on. But that may or may not involve guns. In fact, the question here is whether the widespread ownership of guns, particularly of automatic weapons, adds to self defense more than it subtracts from it. (3) Government derives the right to regulate guns, and other things, on the basis of providing for the common good, providing for peace and security, and upholding lawful process. But again, it's a question as to whether guns add to such things more than they subtract from them. But note that the issue here is 'regulate,' not 'prohibit' -- even if guns are useful or necessary to securing these outcomes, government regulation of guns may also be necessary to securing them. (4) The Second Amendment is, as is much of the Bill of Rights, very vague. What it means is subject to interpretation, and to reinterpretation as society changes.

Mar 2, 2004, 08:49 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 333	Our Founding Fathers are history's keenest observers of human nature and most transcendental philosophers. They have most clearly and honestly identified the source of all mankind's prior and future suffering: Goverments and abuse of power. People are programmed by instinct and self-preservation to be more good than evil (witness any "hidden camera" show in which even the seemingly toughest and self-concerned dudes, even of "historically averse" races, class, or "types" always go way out of their way to be decent even in the most trying or embarrassing of social situations, i.e. "please pull-up my pants" etc But it is only when power is institutionalized, either by monarchical prestige, family privelege, bureaucratic preference, pinning on a badge, or uniform that is man's evil given fertile ground in which to flourish OUR FOUNDING FATHERS' WORDS AND INTENTIONS AND PHILOSOPHY WERE NOT VAGUE!!!!! AND THEY ARE ETERNALLY WISE AND THE WORLD'S FIRST AND ONLY LASTING MEANS TO DEAL WITH HUMAN NATURE AND PROMISE MAN'S BEST HOPE FOR REAL ASCENDANCY IT IS THE ONLY SINCERE AND MOST HOPEFUL WAY FOR SOCIETY TO FLOURISH, AVOID REVOLUTION, AND PROVIDES MANKIND'S ONLY HOPE FOR REAL SOCIETAL EVOLUTION READ THE FOUNDING FATHERS CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES' CONSTITUTIONS, AND THE WORDS OF THOMAS PAINE, AT LEAST THE PAGES ON GOVERNMENT IN HIS "RIGHTS OF MAN" EVERY SINGLE SOCIAL PROBLEM WE FACE IN THE U.S. AND THE WORLD TODAY, AND EVERY INTERNATIONAL POLICY PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY.... IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE HAVE STRAYED FROM THIS CORE PHILOSOPHY: THAT ALL INSTITUTIONAL POWER CORRUPTS, THAT WHEN MEN ARE EQUAL IN THEIR RIGHT TO BE ARMED, CRIME, OPPRESSION AND TYRANNY DIMINISHES, AND THAT WHEN MEN ARE UNENCUMBERED AS COMPLETELY AS POSSIBLE FROM TAXES WHILE BEING UNRESTRICTED IN THE PURSUIT OF THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL INGENUITY, THEY PRODUCE IN ABUNDANCE EVERY INDUSTRIAL, TECHNOLOGICAL AND HUMANITARIAN MARVEL IMAGINABLE, AND THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE CALLED UPON TO FUNCTION IN THE MOST RESTRICTED WAY TO DO WHAT INDIVIDUALS CANNOT DO FOR THEMSELVES: NATIONAL DEFENSE, MINTING OF COINS AND CURRENCY, AN HONEST JUDICIARY The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Mar 2, 2004, 09:15 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 333	The reason for U.S. gun injury and death statistics are higher than most countries: Our self-serving bureaucrats, politicians and many armed agencies perpetuate the myth, both at home and internationally, that U.S. crime rates are high, creating and exploiting fear to cultivate votes and hiring more lifelong jobs, which causes a small number of "trigger-happy" injuries Our self-serving judicial system and prison industry benefits from "cycling" the same cadre of criminals around and around through the system who, thanks to our outstanding emergency trauma hospital care, get to become gunshot statistics while they also get to live again and again, to inflate statistics per capita many times. This alone accounts for substantially increasing the actual numbers of people harmed by firearms in a year. Most of our shootings and deaths are caused by the same repeating cohort of gang and drug-gang members, multiplying crime statistics and gunshot stats that do not significantly affect the quality of life for the vast population of Americans I could go on, but I'm tired. You sheep wear me out. Follow the "money" whenever you question a social condition. Our government approaches 50% the national economy. Thomas Jefferson said it is (lamentably) so that "Government Gains, Liberty Wanes" We have too many politicians exploiting fear, pencil-pushers securing their socially destructive, morally corrupting livelihoods, and waaayyyy too many tin-starred trigger-happy yahoo's preaching law, order, and safety while they stuff themselves with donuts, hopefully one day to the point they no longer fit in their crown vics so they can't shake down the driving public in a futile attempt to pay for a mere fraction of what we own their fat asses and their expesnsive equipment for the rest of their corrupt destructive self-serving lives. Just hang around someday at the Dunkin Donuts when they don't know you're listening and hear the way they talk about mere "civilians", their bread and butter.... See then if you don't see our Founders' wisdom they clearly wrote about in many places of the societal bebefit of an armed populace over these skin-headed parasites! The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Mar 2, 2004, 10:05 pm	#77 (permalink) (top)
SeanWah Molten Ash Posts: 47	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There is no 'natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms.' Arms, guns, are a product of human society, and a fairly-recent product at that. They are not natural things that humans have a natural right to possess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> (1) The statement above has little to do so much with the guns as much as the ability to exercise the right, which guns allow: defense of the self and of the property. There is no right to bear arms, but there is a right to bear arms in self-defense. You addressed this point later. (2) Fairly recent? Muskets first emerged in the 1400's.... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Humans do have a 'natural, inherent and inalienable right to' self defense, defense of loved ones, defense of their society, and so on. But that may or may not involve guns. In fact, the question here is whether the widespread ownership of guns, particularly of automatic weapons, adds to self defense more than it subtracts from it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If the presence of guns facilitates one's ability to act in self-defense or defense of family or property, then no conditions can theoretically exist whereby their presence subtracts from it.

Mar 2, 2004, 10:51 pm	#78 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	I really don't see what it matters what the founding fathers said, they weren't infallible. Whether they were for or against gun control is pretty irrevelant, they were just men, like the rest of us. I'd like to know how gun control advocates explain the statistics in places like Switzerland and the Midwest, which have extremely high gun ownership per capita numbers and extremely low gun death(saccidental or homicidal). And for those who advocate gun access, I agree with you. But don't you think we should combine that with a push for more gun education?

Mar 3, 2004, 06:08 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
OdieWon Sedimentary Rock Location: South Dakota Posts: 10	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) And for those who advocate gun access, I agree with you. But don't you think we should combine that with a push for more gun education?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> YES, more education would be a great way to work on this problem. I personally started this with my family first. Even if someone chooses NOT to have a gun, EVERYONE should know how to handle one safely, even if they don't plan to use one. You never know when you might encounter one, and need to handle it safely even if only to unload it without shooting your foot off. It's like learning to handle a kitchen knife. As a child parents teach us to be careful when cutting up vegetables and when washing them in the dishwater. It is easy to cut yourself if you don't THINK AHEAD.

Mar 3, 2004, 08:32 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	1) If people have the right to self defense, then they have the right to decide what to use in order to secure that right. 2) People employed by the state have no extra right to have defensive weapons than the rest of us. 1 and 2 rule out gun control on the part of the state. --Jackney Sneeb