Americans & Guns

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mozart1220,)


If you honesty think that you could defend yourself against the government with any weapon you could personaly keep in your home you are delusional, and the only government you have to worry about is the one currently in control. THEY are the ones taking away your rights through the "Patriot Act" and the "Homeland Security Dept."

:rolleyes: tell that to david koresh and all the WOMEN AND CHILDREN CLINTON BUTCHERED

Most gun control advocates are against these things.

Cars need to be registered and you need a liscence to operate them and their main function is TRANSPORTATION. Not everyone is allowed to operate just any vehicle. There are restrictions.

:rolleyes: same with guns... enforce the laws you have now...

A gun's main function is TO KILL, yet it many states, anyone can buy anything they want. The Brady bill is basicly toothless. There needs to be MANDETORY education and liscensing before a gun can be owned, and yearly registration. Laws need to be passed to ensure that anyone using a gun in a crime gets such a serious sentance that they wil not be around to do it twice.

:rolleyes: too many laws exist now... enforce the ones you have

There is NOTHING unconstitutional about liscensing or registering firearms. IF the government wanted to take them from you, they would do it. Period. They would just go house to house and get them. and if you tried to stop them with your little pea shooter, I'm sure they would find a way to stop you.

:rolleyes: just like clinton did at waco...

That's what Tomahawk missles are for.
Gun regulation would only help law enforcement.

************** more regulation doesn't do anything... why not enforce the regulations you have now? THINK

Many of my family are police officers. It's frightening to think of them out there where the criminals and drunken rednecks are better armed than they are.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[ConservativeX]

You don't have a Constitutional right to have a car; you DO have a Constitutional right to have a gun.

Just a note, but is there any person here who favors gun control that would support licensing efforts on any of your other rights in the Bill of Rights?

Why not?

And I already know the "cause guns kill" argument, but it is false; guns by themselves can do nothing.

Let's bring cars back in; more people die because of cars (NOT a Constitutional right) than by guns (A SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED Constitutional right), so why aren't you guys out there seeking the further restriction of cars?

"It comes down to paople wantng others to think they are tough, like the ability to kill is cool. I think it's retarded. That's why you see so many stupid tattoos, and "no fear" stickers and "chicks dig scars" on tee shirts. How childish. It's all turned into a playground "who's got the biggest" contest. Even the loudest car stereo is a cool thing, which is the STUPIDEST prick fight imaginable."

You opened the door to criticism of penis size with this candy ass statement.
Even a cursory study of the second amendment and surrounding thought will lead you to the conclusion that INDIVIDUALS have the right to bear arms, not just citizen Militia's. Your denial of this FACT indicates that you have some sort of agenda. Why are you so concerned about other Men's desire to show off their stereos etc.?
I notice you consider it okay for you to own a couple popguns but look down your nose at other gun owners. What's your problem?

[ConservativeX]

Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons are the reason Rosie O'Donnel is fat.

[ConservativeX]

I will restate my question so it doesn't get lost:

Is there any person here who favors gun control that would support licensing efforts of your other rights in the Bill of Rights?

[Mozart1220]

Originally posted by ConservativeX, I will restate my question so it doesn't get lost: Is there any person here who favors gun control that would support licensing efforts of your other rights in the Bill of Rights?

THE BILL OF RIGHTS SAYS "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"!!!!!


Why do you keep convieniently leaving that out? besides, I doubt the founding fathers had automatic weapons and armour piercing bullets in mind. I doub't they thought 12 year olds would take thier father's guns to school and kill thier classmates.

In a "technical" sense, the constitution protects "arms" it doesn't even mention guns. you could carry a big rock and the constitution is served.

True, the gun doesn't kill, but without it, most cowardly gangsters and "militia members" couldn't kill either.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Mozart1220, THE BILL OF RIGHTS SAYS "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" Why do you keep convieniently leaving that out? besides, I doubt the founding fathers had automatic weapons and armour piercing bullets in mind. I doub't they thought 12 year olds would take thier father's guns to school and kill thier classmates. In a "technical" sense, the constitution protects "arms" it doesn't even mention guns. you could carry a big rock and the constitution is served. True, the gun doesn't kill, but without it, most cowardly gangsters and "militia members" couldn't kill either.

"When It is a crime to own a gun, only the criminals will have guns" Ever heard that cliche?
The reason I ask is that our revolutionary heroes were wary of the usurpations of authoritarian governments. The weapons the colonists posessed at the time of the most honorable war America ever fought were the latest military technology. I have no doubt that if these men could lead us now they would allow all of us to possess as much of the latest military gear as we want. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to put government tyrants on notice that their siezure of authority from legitimate sources would not be easy or bloodless.

Now, if you want to disarm the Government of the US then I will agree that the citizenry needs no more second amendment protection for their gun collections.

Are you aware that the government of Switzerland trusts all of its adult male citizens with assault rifles?
Here is something to consider, an excerpt from here:
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/artic.../article11.html
Quote The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."

For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)

Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.
SNIP
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however.

Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado.

Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.

But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure, "Zurich News" recommends September's Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.

While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime.End quote

But don't even think about invading and occupying Switzerland. You will get your rear end shot off... Are they safe in a dangerous world? Obviously not 100%. But I bet they don't worry about a despotic government getting out of control either.

Actually in 2001 there was an incident in the Swiss parliament where MPs were killed and wounded. That story is here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=34751
Here's an excerpt:
Quotefollowing the Sept. 27, 2001, shooting spree in Zug, a consultation process on tightening Swiss gun laws failed to see the adoption of serious gun reforms.

The measures under consideration thus far include tighter rules for persons wanting to buy firearms, as well as a ban on imitation and soft-air guns, said SwissInfo. Based on current statistics, studies show there are 1.2 million firearms in Switzerland, the news service reported, citing a survey by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, a figure Metler has described as "worrying."

But critics counter such rules would give the federal government too much power in deciding who can and cannot obtain a firearm, a problem that could limit the country's ability to defend itself, based on its current system of ensuring national security. End Quote

[commonsense]

Mozart is proof that if you start telling someone a lie when he is young enough, and keep telling it to him long enough, it becomes fact to him. [quote, Joseph Goebbels]

I'd be interested in knowing his educational background.

[dotcoma]

[quote=Comrade,]And who would even try to rob or murder a member of the KKK.

I mean, NRA. [quote]

Another graduate from the school of Micheal Moore. A moronic liberal that compares Bush to Hitler, then tells us to give our guns over to him. How does that make sense?

[dotcoma]

Hey, mass murderers like Hitler, Moa and Stalin agree: GUN CONTROL WORKS!!!

[dotcoma]

Originally posted by ConservativeX, Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons are the reason Rosie O'Donnel is fat.

THAT is f@cking hysterical. I'm gonna have to write that one down.

[Mozart1220]

I had a good high school education, followed by reading everything I can get my hands on and watching as much educational TV as I can get. I have SOME conservative leanings, and SOME liberal. I think people should be allowed to own guns, in fact I own two. I just think they should be liscenced and registered, and SO DID THE WRITERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

I used to hunt every year, but now that I'm in my 40's It's easier to hunt my meat at the supermarket. I never saw the need to buy an automatic weapon. Deer, rabits and squirrils never scared me that much, and as a fair shot, I never NEEDED automatic weapons.

"WELL REGULATED MILITIA" Remember THAT part?

Where did YOU get YOUR education?

[Mozart1220]

Originally posted by commonsense, Mozart is proof that if you start telling someone a lie when he is young enough, and keep telling it to him long enough, it becomes fact to him. [quote, Joseph Goebbels] I'd be interested in knowing his educational background.

You mean lies like creation, and "America is a two party system, Republican and communist" ?

What lie were you referring to? We had all kinds of guns in the house when I was growing up. The only difference is, we never used them in a fight. I was brought up to believe only a coward has to use a weapon in a fight.

I guess you never learned that facts override your opinion. It's too bad your reading list did not include the constitution, bill of rights, and federalist papers. You should also read the writtings of the founding fathers. However, I'm sure you still won't let a little thing like the facts get in the way of your ideology.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Mozart1220, guns... I just think they should be liscenced and registered, and SO DID THE WRITERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. I used to hunt every year, but now that I'm in my 40's It's easier to hunt my meat at the supermarket. I never saw the need to buy an automatic weapon. Deer, rabits and squirrils never scared me that much, and as a fair shot, I never NEEDED automatic weapons.

I don't like killing stuff. Seeing an animal dead isn't near as cool as watching 'em live. Not a hunter, but I recognize its validity and its excitement. It's legal and law abiding.
Is there a quote or excerpt from the "writers of the second amendment" to lend credence to the above assertion?
Did you read my posts above? Would you care to comment on my (stated)positions?

PH, you're absolutely right on this issue. You could also cite Israel as a country with a very high per capita weapons ownership rate. While there are numerous terrorist attacks and violence with Palestinians, there is very little actual crime, or murders in Israel.
I first fired a pistol and rifle at age six. Shotguns came later. I started hunting at age 12. WE all did in my family. I no longer hunt but enjoy backpacking instead. I am constantly amazed when I hear about how much intensive training citizens need in order to handle firearms. These comments seem to emanate from people who are afraid of guns and probably have never fired one. If a six year old can learn gun safety, any adult can figure it our in short order. There is a FEAR mystic generated about firearms that is intended to make the general populace nervous of their neighbors possesing guns. Ignorance abounds on this issue. Even people who claim to have read the second amendment and surrounding texts, claim its all about Militias, and guns should be licensed, etc. etc. I think I'll move to Switzerland and win a few shooting contests and live with sane people.

[commonsense]

"I ask, Who are the militia?
They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
(Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

Mozart, et al, are laboring under the tragic (I would argue deliberate)

mis-conception by the U.S. Supreme Court, 1939, in a decision that declared the right to possess a sawed-off shotgun does not exist because such a weapon "is not normal militia-issue" (meaning not found in the National Guard's complement of equipment)

The decision never addressed the real issue of whether States Rights govern such a right as belonging to the individual, or that individual firearms rights are an individual right ennumerated in the second ammendment, independent of the existence of a state militia, since homogenized nationally as part of the army,
However, contemporary writings abound clearly spelling out the founders intent, especially various state constitutions which are unequivocal with lines such as "Ye shall possess firearms in ye homes to prevent tyranny" (i made that up, but it is very close to the PA and VA state constitution--maybe Dave or Patrick Henry can find it)
Besides, even without this abundance of writings of the time, making the founders assume the second ammendment stood without explanation, given the discourse of the ratification process, an honest judiciary, looking at history, would have to determine the second ammendment's intent unequivocally.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/2nd.htm

Further, in the vernacular of the time (also easily verified) the phrase well-regulated meant "well-practiced and organized" , combined with the prevailing understanding that the "militia" was the whole of able-bodied citizens, absent government officials! Whereas those like Mozart have somehow been made comfortable with the opposite socio-political dynamic of ONLY! governmental agents possessing the power to hold guns.
Again, here too, the phrase "well-regulated" has nothing to do with "registration" , at least not at the federal level, which is another thing knee-jerk liberals get confused by.

Briefly, the Bush administration vowed to reopen the SC case once and for all, (of course they reneged) but with developments like the Missouri Concealed Carry Law, the people of the various states, have demanded their rights even with the curiously dormant SC dtermination.
The legal status quo of this issue serves the purposes of the usurpers because a wide-open public debate would reveal the dishonesty or ineptitude of the original ruling, so the muddiness of the waters here serves both sides, except the patriots, who seem to have gained a few victories...that reminds me, I need to check the Missouri topic to see if any MO'ans can describe their state's progress in keeping tyranny at bay.

Not a member (yet) but a cool site to check out:

http://www.trtnational.com/

[PatrickHenry]

Don't know if it has been stated in the thread yet, but the Nazis disarmed the public in Germany before implmenting the Police State and its attendant terror. Here's a group that will not allow that same scenario to develop in the USA:
http://www.jpfo.org/
Another group: Montana ranchers...

[commonsense]

I guess nobody reads my posts.
I put in not just the link, but the Hitler quotes themselves.

I checked your link, PH. Nice org. I couldn't get my head into the Tennessee story in 1946 where local residents rebelled against a fixed election, or something like that...I'm just takung breaks to post here while studying for finals,
But maybe you could sum it up for us.
It does bring certain thoughts to mind, though.

The first gun restrictions targeted freed slaves in the south to aid intimidating them away from the polls after the War of Northern Aggression.

Is it related?

[Samildanach]

All you retarded gun nuts are going to love this....lol

http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63...=wn_techhead_15