NationStates Jolt Archive

Heh. In Canada, ammunition is almost as restricted as guns are. Of course if you've got your certification card on you, you can buy it. And the purchase is noted.

But you can't waltz into every second store (Wal-Mart, and especially pawnshops!) and just pick up a pistol and ammo for it and a stylish holster.

Would those of you on the pro-gun side be willing to see tighter restrictions to get ammunition if you're in the US? A gun is effectively immortal, but ammunition isn't, since once you've used it it's gone.

Thoughts?

Definitely not me. Trusting the government to "watch" us is not acceptable.

The government is a populatity contest--it doesn't mean they know any more or are any better at making decisions. It usually means they had the time on their hands to run, and the money to fund it.

I'll say it again--it's not the inanimate object perpetrating the crimes. It's the people. Lay the blame where it actually belongs. And punish those who are actually responsible.

Of course, you cannot do that in the US either......

Matt

Considering most Wal-marts don't sell pistols, no. :)

Well, I'd hate to go so far as to say it's "wrong", but I'd like to think there's maybe a better way to live. :P I keep comparing your country to mine because aside from specific history (the way each of us became independent countries, for instance), our demographics, geography, values, etc are fairly similar. Yes, on your political scale we'd be considered more left than you, but that hasn't affected, for instance, on the number of guns we have per person in the slightest. But we're not using them in the way that you (your country, not you) are, and more people are dying there than here. And I wonder if the attitudes that bring you to that point are systemic.


I don't know much of how Canada became independent, but I don't think it was with a war, was it? I could be wrong, though. Becoming independent through a war definitely ingrains a sense of never wanting to go back, making some want to hang on to their weapons, to defend themselves later. I'm not so sure our values are as close as you seem to think they are. Your government is younger than our, and you already have fewer freedoms than we do, it seems (don't know for sure, this is just observational interpretation). You have the government telling you what to do more than we do--again it seems that way. Just because Canadians may or may not be more or less predisposed to commiting crimes doesn't justify changing the US' laws, to match the Canadian ones. I think you guys aren't as compressed as we are, and therefore won't have the same cultural clashes and influences as we might in some areas of the US.


While many talk about "defending themselves" and give explicit detailed scenarios in which there literally is no other way, many others are more general, saying they'd shoot someone breaking into their car. Or automatically if someone broke into their house. Someone a while back (sorry, can't remember who) quoted a law (either a federal one, or one from Oregon) that said in essence that you're allowed to shoot someone who runs away from you when you're trying to make a citizen's arrest. You have no idea how appalling that sounds to me.


And that is your right to feel that way. I completely respect that. But, as I stated before, not everyone is equal in my eyes due to actions, respect given, and other variables that allow me to respect someon in return. I will not automatically respect a human due to the fact that they are human. I will respect their space as long as they respect mine, however. They invade mine, all bets are off. There is a reason our flag, initially, almost said, "Don't tread on me". There is a cultural difference there. What's ours is ours. Not ours to give up for someone's interpretation of the "good of all mankind". Yes, my life and the lives of everyone I care about are more important that a stranger's. They always will be.


I know they are. Does that mean they must continue to be? I understand that nobody wants to be the first to give up something they feel they're entitled to, and especially not when the perceived "enemy" (criminals) isn't somehow forced to give theirs up first.


In principle, yes.


It seems to me that this is mirrored in your military.
<snipped> ;)
And for what? Has all of that made you safer than places that spend less (either in dollars, which is everybody, or in percentages) on "defense"?


Don't even get me started on the military. We have no right to be telling anyone in the rest of the world how to handle their affairs. Our military should be downsized by at least half, and brought back within our borders, to help with issues here (hurricanes for instance), and to be ready for an invasion. For defense.


I know that many feel it's a dangerous world, or in the case of guns that it's a dangerous country you live in. There are bad guys out there that may very well harm you if given the opportunity and motive. No question. But it seems to me, on the outside looking in, that when you can devalue someone's life enough to shoot them dead (again, there are cases in which you may very well have to end someone's life, but I submit that this is a tiny tiny fraction of the people that get shot, and not just by criminals) you can devalue anybody. And if you can devalue people, then people's lives and interests mean less to you. That sort of thinking can end up affecting everything that you do, whether you cut someone off in traffic because you don't give a rat's ass about them, or when you end up being a bastard to your spouse because you literally don't care what they have to say.


Again, yes I care more about those I love and know than those I don't. Their lives are already devalued. However, I still have (by my own code) to have a minimum level of respect for first contact. That includes strangers and driving. I don't EVER cut someone off because of lack of caring. That just escalates situations, putting yourself into a situation where you may HAVE to think about defending yourself. Best move in Aikido--don't be there. Don't go looking for trouble, and it has a much tougher time finding you.


My, that went on for a long time. I hope that nobody is going to quote all of that verbatim and quote me statistics or analyse individual sentences or anything. Note that I enclosed it all as "opinion". :)


Well, I quoted most of it....and analyzed some--but not too much in the way of stats... :cool:


This is very fair. When I compare, it's only to say that some of these things I'm saying can work, and here's an example. Any adoption of these things would definitely have to have an American twist on them, because that's what you are - Americans. You're human beings too though, which is why I want you to be safe and not shoot each other. ;)


And I appreciate the good will. But it's not your job to look after us. It's our responsibility to do so. Just like I think it's your responsibility to decide for yourself.


It seems to me that if you want to carry around a weapon concealed, it sort of indicates that you want to do something illicit. Wouldn't you prefer to carry such a weapon openly holstered on your hip or clipped to your bag (like you do with a cell phone) so that people who would potentially cause you problems are aware that you're armed and leave you alone?

There are a few problems with carrying openly. First, there are some out there that would take the opportunity to disarm you for their own purposes, and gain a nice, new toy. Second, tactically, the one known to carry a weapon is the first to be taken down. It's the wiser tactician that doesn't allow the opponent to know everything about their target. Third, you get some people that are REALLY uncomfortable around weaponry (as evidenced by the number of posts for gun control on this board), and rather than have to argue with everyone that has an issue with a firearm, it's easier just to keep it out of sight, so you can deal with people as people, and not as adversaries on the other side of your argument.

never been to wal-mart or k-mart i take it?

Here in Wisconsin, we don't have pistols in our Wal-Marts and K-Marts. Have you seen them in your stores?

Or, you could look at laws as an attempt to set up a more level playing field for everybody to exercise their freedom.

While there's not much of a libertarian movement here, I do hear a lot of rumblings about it in the US. May I propose an alternative? More transparency and accountability built-in to your government. You don't necessarily need less government, but maybe you need to re-establish that it's a "government of the people, for the people". You don't really benefit by crippling or intentionally weakening something that's supposed to be a tool to let you live the kind of life (you collectively, not you the individual) you want. People are fond of bringing up Nazi Germany, and Russia at it's revolution towards communism - both of those came about in part because of weak ineffective governements at the time.

When you have potholes in your road, or the traffic signals aren't working, you don't go and fix them yourself, you complain to your government representative that they aren't doing their job and to get moving on it.

If you're not feeling generally safe and feel that you need to defend yourself, why aren't you complaining to the tool/structure that you've got in place that's supposed to be insuring your right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

If your politicians take note of "big" issues like abortion and defense spending when enough of the public is muttering about them, why aren't people talking about what we're talking about right here?

From Canada, the only time I hear on the news that American politicians are talking about guns is when there's a specific narrow piece of legislation to allow a given type of ammo, or to restrict weapons with a certain rate of fire. These are often cosmetic issues, at best.

I'll sum it up with a rather simple statement (or maybe not, I can get long winded...). Our country was not designed to be for the collective people. It was designed for the individual people. We're not supposed to be looking out for the common good for everyone, because what's good for me is not necessarily good for my neighbor, or someone in another city, or another state. We are trying to make the country as free as possible, so each of us can look out for what's best for us. You can't blanket a country of nearly 300 million people and expect one rule to work for all. This is why we need as few rules as possible that fit as many people as possible. Not 20,000 laws to regulate firearms everywhere. It just doesn't work here.

Heh. In Canada, ammunition is almost as restricted as guns are. Of course if you've got your certification card on you, you can buy it. And the purchase is noted.

But you can't waltz into every second store (Wal-Mart, and especially pawnshops!) and just pick up a pistol and ammo for it and a stylish holster.

Would those of you on the pro-gun side be willing to see tighter restrictions to get ammunition if you're in the US? A gun is effectively immortal, but ammunition isn't, since once you've used it it's gone.

Thoughts?

Just two.

I don't think it matters whether firearms are available three times a block or in just one gun store per major city. Having to drive 45 minutes isn't going to stop me from buying a new carry pistol in the near future.
It's also a big overstatement and a bit inflammatory to suggest that you can 'waltz into' a store and 'just pick up a pistol and ammo.' There is a mandatory background check and a strictly enforced waiting period.
That said, people that have a concealed carry permit (which I do) do not have to apply for a 'purchase permit' in advance, which others in the state normally have to do. This is because to get the carry permit we had to undergo an extremely extensive background check (fingerprinting run through state and federal databases, references, and training). We're considered the good guys. This has proven to be true, because permit holders are statistically one of the most law abiding subsets of the population. I still have to take my new gun to the police department to have it registered after I purchase it.

Secondly, I don't see regulation of the sale of ammunition as being beneficial. It's just too easy to make your own. I have friends that reload all sorts of ammunition. I'm too lazy to do it myself. I think all that it would accomplish is to drive the prices up and make buying ammo to target shoot with a hassle.

Way late, but myths need to die.

Logic for Gun Control


This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.
"Claim: Questioned about the wisdom of teaching Boy Scouts to use firearms, a US General points out the difference between being equipped to do something and doing it.

Status: False

Origins: As
great a tale as this is, it's pure fabrication. It began life in 1999, purportedly about an "LTG Reinwald" of the US Army. In 2001 it reappeared, this time attributed to "Marine Corps General Reinwald."

The U.S. Army denies that there is a Lieutenant General Reinwald and chalks the whole thing up as a hoax. (Which is as logic dictated all along; if an armed forces spokesperson ever gave voice to a sexist remark likening a female interviewer to a prostitute, that officer would soon be called upon to make a very public apology as well as face charges within ranks for conduct unbecoming.)

National Public Radio had this to say about the matter:

'We are aware of an erroneous story posted on the Free Republic Website, and possibly elsewhere, which mentions a supposed interview between an unnamed NPR reporter and a U.S Army Lieutenant General Reinwald. The story is false — the dialogue mentioned was not an NPR interview, and it never aired on any NPR program.'

Those who like their guns and who believe responsible gun ownership begins with teaching young people the right way to handle firearms at an early age have a great fondness for this story. As well they should, because this anecdote illustrates in a humorous way the difference between having the ability to do something and that ability dictating life choices."
http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.htm

Criminals, by definition, disregard laws. How then do those disregarded laws keep anyone at all safe.

Police can only keep people safe if they are there when the crime happens. But since criminals dont commit crimes when police are around... they arent much help protecting anyone.

Well damn, why didn't I think of that! Let's disband the police force, and put the money saved into getting more military style guns on the market, that'll really bring down crime rates!

2,000,000 defensive uses of guns per year, and rising. That's all for now.

Where'd you pull those figures from, Charlton Heston's memoirs?

Ummm you dont learn from history do you? Ever heard of a little thing called Prohibition? Go read about it and learn.

Are guns the only thing needed to be defended against? Oh wait, they are evil incarnate and if there were no guns in the world, it would be a utopia. On second thought, dont go read anything, grow up and learn might be a better suggestion

How can you possibly and so consistently miss the point...I defy you to quote one person here who has said tighter gun control, or even a total ban, will stop all crime. It will reduce it, is the point everyone has been trying to make to you. Stop being deliberately obtuse and debate like a rational person - you obviously aren't stupid, so stop debating as if you are...

Yup, but all it takes is one incident to change all that. You never know when that incident may take place, if it takes place at all.

I hope that I never have to use one of my firearms for self defense, but if I ever have to, I sure want it with me.

And I might walk outside my house tomorrow and be struck by lightning - should I therefore never leave the house unless I am wearing a special lightning proof suit?

If you live your life in constant fear, you are detracting from your own quality of life more than any home invader is likely to...

Something else of note. Many firearms are imported illegally. They aren't always stolen. Criminals will always find a way around the system.

Some hardcore crims would always find a way to get ahold of a gun - but then, a lot of casual criminals wouldn't. Again, people are missing the point of reducing gun crime. I don't think anything anyone could do would ever stop it altogether, but it can be (significantly) reduced.

Let's compare it to a forest fire - do you say "ah, it's already on fire, let's leave it burning" or so you say "well, we probably can't save the whole forest, but lets at least try to save what we can"...

You've drilled down too far. If your only concern is to stop gun violence at the expense of everything else, yes, your way will work.

However, it has been proven that violent crime rates go UP in the US, when stricter gun controls are put in place. Look at NY City, LA, and DC. Everywhere that gun laws have been relaxed or more lenient, violent crime goes DOWN.

I'm looking at all violent crime, not just gun related. Anti-gunners keep getting stuck on the little problem, when "fixing" said little problem makes the more prevalent big problem worse.

No offense, but that sounds like utter horse-puckey shovelled by the NRA to me. Can someone post a relaible source confirming this fact?

Once again, an anti-gunner has missed the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the US. It is meant to be a deterrent to the government to stay in line. That is its primary function. So, yes, we're supposed to have the weapons that our government has (regardless if you're scared of it or not), to keep the necessary evil (a government) on a leash.

So, you think your AK or M16 will stop a corrupt government using M1 Abram MBTs, Apache attack choppers and smart missile that can fly down your chimney? If this is the primary reason for the public to have access to these weapons, better expand the list to include some decent AT weapon (M136 maybe) and some surface-to-air missiles (Stingers?) too...

P.S. Why am I an anti-gunner? I enjoy hunting and target shooting - I just don't need a high-capacity semi-auto to do so...I get by with a bolt action .30-06 and an over/under 12 gauge just fine...;)

And I might walk outside my house tomorrow and be struck by lightning - should I therefore never leave the house unless I am wearing a special lightning proof suit?

If you live your life in constant fear, you are detracting from your own quality of life more than any home invader is likely to...

Do you have a fire extinguisher? Do you live in constant fear of a fire?

Do you wear seatbelts in your car? Constant fear of auto accident?

You hunt with your bolt action .30-06. Many call that a sniper rifle.

Well damn, why didn't I think of that! Let's disband the police force, and put the money saved into getting more military style guns on the market, that'll really bring down crime rates!

I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but you actually hit the nail on the head. In locals that have enacted shall issue laws concerning ccw, or like VT where there are no restrictions on gun ownership or carrying guns, crimes have dropped markedly.

I never said get rid of the police force. I merely pointed out that they cant protect people... there is simply not enough of them, and too many people. What they can do is determine who the criminals are, apprehend them, and bring them before a prosecutor.

Where'd you pull those figures from,Charlton Heston's memoirs?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1033668/posts
http://www.mcsm.org/moreuse.html

How can you possibly and so consistently miss the point...I defy you to quote one person here who has said tighter gun control, or even a total ban, will stop all crime. It will reduce it, is the point everyone has been trying to make to you. Stop being deliberately obtuse and debate like a rational person - you obviously aren't stupid, so stop debating as if you are...

How can you possibly and so consistently miss the point. Tighter gun control, or even a total ban will have no affect on total number of crimes committed. Guns dont commit the crimes... Criminals do... since a gun ban wont reduce the number of criminals, it wont reduce the number of crimes.

And the best way to put it... I would rather have a gun, and never need it, than to need it yet not have it.

How can you possibly and so consistently miss the point. Tighter gun control, or even a total ban will have no affect on total number of crimes committed. Guns dont commit the crimes... Criminals do... since a gun ban wont reduce the number of criminals, it wont reduce the number of crimes.

And the best way to put it... I would rather have a gun, and never need it, than to need it yet not have it.


I have to disagree with you here. Tighter gun control will INCREASE crime. There isnt a 1 criminal to 1 crime ratio. MOST criminals commit multiple crimes before they are stopped(death, arrest etc). Reducing the fear of committing a crime(less fear of getting shot) will only result in them committing more crimes before they are stopped(death, arrest ect).

No offense, but that sounds like utter horse-puckey shovelled by the NRA to me. Can someone post a relaible source confirming this fact?
it is horse puckey, if you look at the last recorded numbers it is quite random, new york has less violent gun crimes than other states with looser gun control, and the other way around with other states

1 word 2 syllables: RAN-DOM

it is horse puckey, if you look at the last recorded numbers it is quite random, new york has less violent gun crimes than other states with looser gun control, and the other way around with other states

1 word 2 syllables: RAN-DOM

What is this I hear? You're saying that gun control does not correlate with a lower number of crimes?

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_purpose.jpg

http://www.plif.com/archive/wc055.gif

:p

Just two.

I don't think it matters whether firearms are available three times a block or in just one gun store per major city. Having to drive 45 minutes isn't going to stop me from buying a new carry pistol in the near future.
It's also a big overstatement and a bit inflammatory to suggest that you can 'waltz into' a store and 'just pick up a pistol and ammo.' There is a mandatory background check and a strictly enforced waiting period.
That said, people that have a concealed carry permit (which I do) do not have to apply for a 'purchase permit' in advance, which others in the state normally have to do. This is because to get the carry permit we had to undergo an extremely extensive background check (fingerprinting run through state and federal databases, references, and training). We're considered the good guys. This has proven to be true, because permit holders are statistically one of the most law abiding subsets of the population. I still have to take my new gun to the police department to have it registered after I purchase it.

Secondly, I don't see regulation of the sale of ammunition as being beneficial. It's just too easy to make your own. I have friends that reload all sorts of ammunition. I'm too lazy to do it myself. I think all that it would accomplish is to drive the prices up and make buying ammo to target shoot with a hassle.


Oog, again, I hate to do this, but not every state has a waiting period. Wisconsin does (two days), and I know the heavily regulated states do as well (California, Illinois, etc). On the up side, it's not the non-regulated states that have the high firearms-related crime. It's still the heavily regulated states that have that issue.

Where'd you pull those figures from, Charlton Heston's memoirs?

Funny. Try places like the National Crime Victimization Survey managed by the census bureau (they state a minimum of 65,000 crimes are prevented with firearms).

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/do_no_harm.html

"Statistics from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) by the Census Bureau indicate that at minimum 65,000 crimes are stopped or prevented annually by armed citizens, usually without a shot fired. Thirteen other studies estimate that far more crimes -- between 764,00 and several million -- are thwarted by men and women with their own firearms."

Note that several other studies say that the figure is much higher.

How can you possibly and so consistently miss the point...I defy you to quote one person here who has said tighter gun control, or even a total ban, will stop all crime. It will reduce it, is the point everyone has been trying to make to you. Stop being deliberately obtuse and debate like a rational person - you obviously aren't stupid, so stop debating as if you are...

Florida's crime records prove that argument false (and so do the other shall-issue concealed carry states' records). Controlling guns may control GUN related crime, but controlling guns increases VIOLENT crime.

Debate like a rational person, when you continue to insult your opposition? You may want to think about your tactics.

So that's at least two anti-gunners that fling insults when their "logic" isn't accepted.

And I might walk outside my house tomorrow and be struck by lightning - should I therefore never leave the house unless I am wearing a special lightning proof suit?

If you live your life in constant fear, you are detracting from your own quality of life more than any home invader is likely to...

I'm not living it in fear. I'm trying to be prepared for a few more eventualities that you, that's all. It's not going to affect whether or not I go outside.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_purpose.jpg
then the crazy bitch can join the police force, more often than not they are far understaffed, that way she gets to be a crazy gun nut AND gets paid for it

Funny. Try places like the National Crime Victimization Survey managed by the census bureau (they state a minimum of 65,000 crimes are prevented with firearms).

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/do_no_harm.html

"Statistics from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) by the Census Bureau indicate that at minimum 65,000 crimes are stopped or prevented annually by armed citizens, usually without a shot fired. Thirteen other studies estimate that far more crimes -- between 764,00 and several million -- are thwarted by men and women with their own firearms."

Note that several other studies say that the figure is much higher.

Hmm, a figure that could be anywhere between 65,000 and 2,000,000 - sounds HIGHLY variable (read suspect).

Given that the figures are correct, can I now have some figures on:

A. Accidental deaths per year
B. Crimes committed by guns that at one stage belonged to lawful owners
C. Crimes of passion/domestic violence involving guns per year

Anyway, we're in an infinity loop. I have respect for responsible gun owners; I believe in tighter control, not a total ban. I also see no place in a civilised society for military style weapons in the hands of civilians. And I also do not personally believe that a gun is a good tool for home defence.

No offense, but that sounds like utter horse-puckey shovelled by the NRA to me. Can someone post a relaible source confirming this fact?

Go to the Florida Department of Justice's web site. There, you will find your stats.

So, you think your AK or M16 will stop a corrupt government using M1 Abram MBTs, Apache attack choppers and smart missile that can fly down your chimney? If this is the primary reason for the public to have access to these weapons, better expand the list to include some decent AT weapon (M136 maybe) and some surface-to-air missiles (Stingers?) too...

P.S. Why am I an anti-gunner? I enjoy hunting and target shooting - I just don't need a high-capacity semi-auto to do so...I get by with a bolt action .30-06 and an over/under 12 gauge just fine...;)

Anti-gunners are those that wish to restrict law-abiding citizens' access to firearms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

Just because you shoot like Mr. Kerry does, doesn't mean you don't want to take firearms away from people who have committed no crimes with them.

That's anti-gun. That's all about controlling your neighbor, when you have no right to do so.

it is horse puckey, if you look at the last recorded numbers it is quite random, new york has less violent gun crimes than other states with looser gun control, and the other way around with other states

1 word 2 syllables: RAN-DOM

And yet, it has higher violent crime than many other places that have less gun control.

You're drilling too far again. If you just single out guns, yeah, gun crime will probably go down, but the rest of the violent crime soars, due to the fact that the law-abiding populace is disarmed.

Look at the big picture, guys.

http://www.plif.com/archive/wc055.gif

:p

Yup, that's the image the media likes to portray, when in actuallity, we're much less prone to violence than non-legal gun owners.

then the crazy bitch can join the police force, more often than not they are far understaffed, that way she gets to be a crazy gun nut AND gets paid for it

Where did you get this idea that the government and the police forces rule us? Did your year of study give you this idea?

Wow...you completely missed the point of what the creators of this country were trying to do.

They didn't want the citizens to be ruled. Get it through your head.

Hmm, a figure that could be anywhere between 65,000 and 2,000,000 - sounds HIGHLY variable (read suspect).

Given that the figures are correct, can I now have some figures on:

A. Accidental deaths per year
B. Crimes committed by guns that at one stage belonged to lawful owners
C. Crimes of passion/domestic violence involving guns per year

Anyway, we're in an infinity loop. I have respect for responsible gun owners; I believe in tighter control, not a total ban. I also see no place in a civilised society for military style weapons in the hands of civilians. And I also do not personally believe that a gun is a good tool for home defence.

Actually a figure that could be between 65,000 and SEVERAL million. Not necessarily two.

The problem with your viewpoint is that you are the one defining responsible. What is responsible? Gun, locked and stored away, with absolutely no ammunition near it? When I'm home, mine is loaded, next to the bed, in a place where the average person wouldn't look for it, with several years of training under my belt. That's my idea of responsible.

You're advocating control of people you know and don't know. You can believe and do what you think is right for you. You don't have the right to tell ME what I can or cannot do with my life.

Everyone seems to keep missing that part.

Given the response to the range of stats I gave you, my numbers won't mean anything to you. So, I'm not going to try. You think the way you do, and that's really okay. Again, you have that right. Please, just stay away from my freedoms and rights.

Anti-gunners are those that wish to restrict law-abiding citizens' access to firearms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

Just because you shoot like Mr. Kerry does, doesn't mean you don't want to take firearms away from people who have committed no crimes with them.

That's anti-gun. That's all about controlling your neighbor, when you have no right to do so.
*sigh* Again I ask, can you show me where, in the constitution, it guarantees a right to semi-auto firearms?

If someone asked me to give up a right as superflous as to own a semi-auto, if I believed it would end up saving innocent lives per year, I would give it up in a flash.

In your heart-of-hearts, do you genuinely feel your rights would be impugned, or would you really just be PO'd that your shiny toys got taken away? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I could be completely wrong about your (and others) motivations...

Anyway, let's face it, you don't understand my side of the debate, and I apparently don't undertsand yours...

*sigh* Again I ask, can you show me where, in the constitution, it guarantees a right to semi-auto firearms?

If someone asked me to give up a right as superflous as to own a semi-auto, if I believed it would end up saving innocent lives per year, I would give it up in a flash.

In your heart-of-hearts, do you genuinely feel your rights would be impugned, or would you really just be PO'd that your shiny toys got taken away? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I could be completely wrong about your (and others) motivations...

Anyway, let's face it, you don't understand my side of the debate, and I apparently don't undertsand yours...

It's not the toys I'd miss. In the Federalist Papers, the founders wanted us to keep a relative pace with the government's ability to wage war, so we wouldn't be run under at the first dictator to pop up--not to mention the citizens were the first line of defense against invasion. We're not supposed to even have a standing army.

Yes, I think we should have some of the things classified as munitions. I'm sorry if that doesn't jive with your logic, but there it is.

I'd miss my freedom. We're already regulating citizens into a socialist government, where we all exist for the purpose of making everyone's life exactly the same, whether or not we work for it. That doesn't work for me. If I work for something by myself, no one has a right to it but me.

I'm just trying to be prepared for eventualities. The self-defense aspect of semi-auto pistols does help--the violent crime stats from the states that have adopted concealed carry have gone down. I would like to be as prepared as I can be. This is why I use seat belts, why I have a savings account, why I have insurance, etc. It's only preparation. For some reason, a gun is perceived as evil, and that makes it a non-option for being prepared. That's what I don't understand.

Hmm, a figure that could be anywhere between 65,000 and 2,000,000 - sounds HIGHLY variable (read suspect).

The reason the crime victimization survey was so much lower than the other studies has to do with the following info.
1) They did not specifically ask if a gun was used to prevent a crime. If people volunteered the info then it was recorded as such.

2) People responding were made aware that it was the Federal govt asking and that they knew where the responder lived.

Under these circumstances would you voluntarily tell the federal govt that you used a gun to protect yourself? Especially when they didnt ask? What if you used an illegal gun because the place where you live doesnt allow guns, would you tell the federal govt then?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html


Given that the figures are correct, can I now have some figures on:

A. Accidental deaths per year
B. Crimes committed by guns that at one stage belonged to lawful owners
C. Crimes of passion/domestic violence involving guns per year

Anyway, we're in an infinity loop. I have respect for responsible gun owners; I believe in tighter control, not a total ban. I also see no place in a civilised society for military style weapons in the hands of civilians. And I also do not personally believe that a gun is a good tool for home defence.

I do not subscribe to the national safety council, so I will some links to sites that refer back to their data.

http://www.youdontsay.org/Gunstats.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html


as to gun crime(I am making the ASSUMTION that ALL guns stemmed from a legal USA owner at one time, the numbers are even more favourable if some percentage were never legal in the USA), here is a link to the DOJ. As you can see, there are more crime prevented than committed with guns(unless you use NCV survey).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

your gonna have to do your own research on the domestic violence thing cause im getting bored.

*sigh* Again I ask, can you show me where, in the constitution, it guarantees a right to semi-auto firearms?

Anyway, let's face it, you don't understand my side of the debate, and I apparently don't undertsand yours...


While I understand the reasoning(dont agree with though) behind people who want more gun control, I am completely baffled by people who think the assault weapons ban is a good thing.

You used the term semi auto above, every pistol and revolver is a semi auto; with the exception of some derringers.

You do understand what the term means right?

Oog, again, I hate to do this, but not every state has a waiting period. Wisconsin does (two days), and I know the heavily regulated states do as well (California, Illinois, etc). On the up side, it's not the non-regulated states that have the high firearms-related crime. It's still the heavily regulated states that have that issue.

I learn something new every day. I've lived in two states and both have waiting periods. Both are moving in the right direction with gun laws recently (MI recently became shall-issue and OH just enacted their concealed carry legislation).
I always wondered what the point of the instant-check was if you had to wait to pick the gun up anyway. I had assumed (wrongly, I guess) that the wait was federally imposed. I am glad to see that some states don't waste your time with the pointless wait.

The reason the crime victimization survey was so much lower than the other studies has to do with the following info.
1) They did not specifically ask if a gun was used to prevent a crime. If people volunteered the info then it was recorded as such.

2) People responding were made aware that it was the Federal govt asking and that they knew where the responder lived.

Under these circumstances would you voluntarily tell the federal govt that you used a gun to protect yourself? Especially when they didnt ask? What if you used an illegal gun because the place where you live doesnt allow guns, would you tell the federal govt then?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html



I do not subscribe to the national safety council, so I will some links to sites that refer back to their data.

http://www.youdontsay.org/Gunstats.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html


as to gun crime(I am making the ASSUMTION that ALL guns stemmed from a legal USA owner at one time, the numbers are even more favourable if some percentage were never legal in the USA), here is a link to the DOJ. As you can see, there are more crime prevented than committed with guns(unless you use NCV survey).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

your gonna have to do your own research on the domestic violence thing cause im getting bored.
because its perfectly fine for some hunting magazine to know your CC # but its is perfectly ludicrous for the fed gov to know you have a gun.

i am utterly baffled by the asinine reasoning you gun nuts go through

because its perfectly fine for some hunting magazine to know your CC # but its is perfectly ludicrous for the fed gov to know you have a gun.

i am utterly baffled by the asinine reasoning you gun nuts go through

Chess, rather than troll, why dont you explain your reasoning for a total gun ban and how that would have an affect on crime rates overall?

Perhaps you have something to say that is constructive, that you cant get out because you are so busy "defending" yourself.

I learn something new every day. I've lived in two states and both have waiting periods. Both are moving in the right direction with gun laws recently (MI recently became shall-issue and OH just enacted their concealed carry legislation).
I always wondered what the point of the instant-check was if you had to wait to pick the gun up anyway. I had assumed (wrongly, I guess) that the wait was federally imposed. I am glad to see that some states don't waste your time with the pointless wait.

Unfortunately, I'm still in one of the states that does make you wait. :(

because its perfectly fine for some hunting magazine to know your CC # but its is perfectly ludicrous for the fed gov to know you have a gun.

i am utterly baffled by the asinine reasoning you gun nuts go through

Big difference there, kid.

One you had a choice, the other, you didn't.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_solution2.jpg

Chess, rather than troll, why dont you explain your reasoning for a total gun ban and how that would have an affect on crime rates overall?

Perhaps you have something to say that is constructive, that you cant get out because you are so busy "defending" yourself.
i DARE you to quote me saying i advocate or even ASSERTING that i advocate a total gun ban

DARE. YOU.

because its perfectly fine for some hunting magazine to know your CC # but its is perfectly ludicrous for the fed gov to know you have a gun.

i am utterly baffled by the asinine reasoning you gun nuts go through

You are definately one of the most developmentally challenged individuals I have run into.

Maybe I dont want to tell the govt because I might fear that I might be prosecuted for using the gun to defend myself. Maybe the responders had an illegal gun at home and used it to defend themselves and feared they would be going to jail if the told the govt.

An armed security guard in Brooklyn was charged for illegal gun possession after he saved his infant son from a criminal in his own house. The criminal died(but that was deemed to be justified).

The guard btw had moved from one state to NY because he changed jobs. He had filled out all the paperwork and was waiting for the govt to give him his license in NY. His job before was ARMED SECURITY GUARD. his job in NY is also ARMED SECURITY GUARD.

Meaning you dimwit, his job is to go around with a gun in his holster. Despite this he has been indicted. Good luck finding a jury that will convict him though.

Big difference there, kid.

One you had a choice, the other, you didn't.
no, its not, EXPLAIN how its different ,cite your proof that you arnt a babblnig halfwit

as a british citizen i have never seen a single gun in my life. i believe it is not only the right of government but its duty to keep any kind of gun away from me. and i feel much safer knowing there arent guns in circulation. if someone tries to take over britain the army will stand in their way. its their job

no, its not, EXPLAIN how its different ,cite your proof that you arnt a babblnig halfwit

It would be my choice to give someone my credit card number, when I was ordering something.

The federally mandated background check is FORCED upon those who sell firearms, otherwise, they face felony charges. You know, FBI?

That is why I said, one involved choice and the other was forced.

as a british citizen i have never seen a single gun in my life. i believe it is not only the right of government but its duty to keep any kind of gun away from me. and i feel much safer knowing there arent guns in circulation. if someone tries to take over britain the army will stand in their way. its their job

That's fine. This isn't the UK. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. In the US, you can't control my opinions nor my actions, if I'm not actively harming someone.

That always gets lost, when dealing with those who aren't actually in the US. It's a very large part of our identity and who we are. The government isn't our nanny that knows better.

i DARE you to quote me saying i advocate or even ASSERTING that i advocate a total gun ban

DARE. YOU.

I dont remember the thread, but someone else quoted you saying to make all weapons illegal and teaching people self defense classes.

Again, rather than "defend" your position, back it up with relavent facts and we'll discuss it.

as a british citizen i have never seen a single gun in my life. i believe it is not only the right of government but its duty to keep any kind of gun away from me. and i feel much safer knowing there arent guns in circulation. if someone tries to take over britain the army will stand in their way. its their job

It would have been more accurate to say "I feel much safer being ignorant of the guns in circulation around me". There are guns in circulation around you. You just dont know about it.

It would be my choice to give someone my credit card number, when I was ordering something.

The federally mandated background check is FORCED upon those who sell firearms, otherwise, they face felony charges. You know, FBI?

That is why I said, one involved choice and the other was forced.
oh yes, background checks are wholly unfair and illogical

people who have commited violent crimes should be allowed to have guns
people with mental illnesses should be allowed to have guns
people who are predisposed to violent behavior should have a gun

the government has no right to keep guns out of these people's hands

and there is a federally mandated age limit on buying tobacco products, is that unfair?

with your cc number i know where you live, where you shop, what you buy, when you buy it. etc etc

I dont remember the thread, but someone else quoted you saying to make all weapons illegal and teaching people self defense classes.

Again, rather than "defend" your position, back it up with relavent facts and we'll discuss it.
thats was not a serious post, if you want to support your inane statement that i advocate banning all guns, then quote me suggesting all guns should be banned without warrant or reason

oh yes, background checks are wholly unfair and illogical

people who have commited violent crimes should be allowed to have guns
people with mental illnesses should be allowed to have guns
people who are predisposed to violent behavior should have a gun

the government has no right to keep guns out of these people's hands

and there is a federally mandated age limit on buying tobacco products, is that unfair?

with your cc number i know where you live, where you shop, what you buy, when you buy it. etc etc

People who have committed violent crimes should be shot.
People with mental illnesses should have someone from their family looking out for them
People who are "predisposed" to violent behavior either fall under #1 or #2, but only after the fact.

Yes. Drugs should be legal. People need to be responsible for their own actions. If you're a kid, it's up to your parents.

Yes, I give out my credit card number and the vendor could do something nefarious with it. Any vendor could. With your IP address I can find things out about you, and you haven't given me anything....your point? It's still your choice to give your credit card number to a vendor. You don't have to. You can go out and purchase something with cash in person. Regardless, if you buy a gun from a dealer, you must go through a background check. There is no choice, which was the point I was making, and you, true to form, changed it into something completely different.

I advocate personal responsiblity. You advocate control of the populace to whatever you feel is necessary. Who the hell are you to decide? What makes your opinions any more right than another's? Absolutely nothing. You don't get to decide for me, and that's what really gets your panties in a bunch. You can't control me--the thing that scares you most.

thats was not a serious post, if you want to support your inane statement that i advocate banning all guns, then quote me suggesting all guns should be banned without warrant or reason

Oh, you had a reason, it just didn't make any sense.

Only four pages of stuff to wade through. Gah. I'll start with the ones that are quoting me, and then pick and choose the other posts I want to quote of out context. ;)

Only four pages of stuff to wade through. Gah. I'll start with the ones that are quoting me, and then pick and choose the other posts I want to quote of out context. ;)

Yeah, I ran into that over the weekend, too. :eek:

It depends on the state. The Federal govt also requires that if a person/company sells more than a certain amount of guns a year(either 18 or 50, im not sure) they must get a FFL license and do background checks on purchasers.

A few decades ago, a person used to be able to by guns by mail order. Hardware stores used to sell guns. Kids used to take guns in the nyc subways to their high school and be part of their shooting team. There was almost no crime back then and guns were available EVERYWHERE. The easily availability of guns does not lead to increases in crime.

Heh. What I meant by the Wal-Mart and pawn shop example was that you can see guns available in so many places that you don't in Canada (where I'm from), so it was much more noticeable. I didn't actually try to purchase any, so I don't know exactly what was involved in doing so. But like I said, to my unused-to-the-sight eyes, there were places to buy guns as frequently as hamburger joints. :P

If it matters, most of the places I'm thinking of are in Nevada, and also Washington state, which are the two states I've spent the most time in.

If I could just throw out an unbacked opinion, I would say that the increase in crime stems more from the A)the failed war on drugs and B) the anti establishment movement that was an offshoot of the civil rights movement.

But is there an increase in crime? From what I've read over the years, it appears that if you're in what used to be called a "first world country", you're less likely to be the victim of a violent crime now than you were 25 years ago. This holds true even in the US. No I can't provide a link and of course your own skepticism will have to guide you on whether you want to go over overall stats yourself. But this is my impression of the trends, news media aside.

Yes, the ridiculous "war on drugs" has done much to waste resources and has definitely enriched a huge number of criminals of all calibre (no thread pun intended ;) ). For any that don't understand the concept, it's basically that if you imperfectly enforce a ban on something that people want, you make it even harder to supress, because the people with the banned thing/substance/information can pass the higher price of production and distribution on to the final consumer.

And of course, when the price goes up for people that desperately want/need whatever it is that's banned, they're sometimes willing or driven to go do things that are injurious to the society that is trying to defend against the onslaught.

The classic example given is the heroin user that resorts to crime to come up with the cash necessary to obtain their next dose.

As for the "anti-establishment" movement you mentioned, Isanyonehome, I'm not quite able to follow the reasoning behind it. It looks like some from this camp would prefer a very minimal goverment, and largely unchecked behavior for themselves, even if it overlaps on others in a negative way, making it look to me sort of like an "only the strong survive" sort of thing. Not suggesting that the people who are the best shots with a weapon will be the only ones left, I meant it in the metaphorical sense. :P

ok. heres how it is. people think everythign is gonna go crazy and people are gonna kill each other. So lets ban guns. but everyone knows people will still get them illegally. then ifu have a gun, u have more power then others. if everyone can have guns if they want them, then u wont try and kill people or rob stores with ur gun, cuz more then likely the store onwer will have an ak pointed at ur face the second u try somehting funny. Thus detering conflict(cuz no one wants to get capped in the dome) :sniper:

ok. heres how it is. people think everythign is gonna go crazy and people are gonna kill each other. So lets ban guns. but everyone knows people will still get them illegally. then ifu have a gun, u have more power then others. if everyone can have guns if they want them, then u wont try and kill people or rob stores with ur gun, cuz more then likely the store onwer will have an ak pointed at ur face the second u try somehting funny. Thus detering conflict(cuz no one wants to get capped in the dome) :sniper:
so the gun owner is going to pull out an ak on 1 or 3 people pointing automatic shotguns or mac-10s or uzis at him?


there is so much delusional bullshit in this thread, which im sure is fueled by NRA misfacts, ie michael moore facts so the republicans can understand it better

Definitely not me. Trusting the government to "watch" us is not acceptable.

Hmmmm, either I laid out the idea wrong, or there are some issues with your government I haven't fully appreciated.

It wasn't so much that I was suggesting the government be a watchdog about this, it was more that records should be kept to better see who has what and who's using it. Also, it might be helpful after the fact when something happens and someone is shot. More records might not help, but they certainly couldn't hurt. And sometimes they just may help.

But records that are more open to anybody, not just some army of gov't bureaucrats. I'm a big fan of openess and accountability, and I don't think anybody should be more accountable than a government, since it's an accumulation of power.

The government is a populatity contest--it doesn't mean they know any more or are any better at making decisions. It usually means they had the time on their hands to run, and the money to fund it.

Well, the politicians are in a popularity contest. But the bulk of a goverment isn't elected, so that's not the best comparison you've come up with. ;)

And I think it is a good idea for my government to have access to what people are doing. Hopefully most of that information is generally available to everybody, since we're the ones paying for it. Not deeply personal information of course, but that's something that has to be defined more specifically by a group, so that all can live with it.

But in the government's case, let them put some of their overfunded employees to work looking at what the population is doing so that they can better represent us and what we want and maybe even so they can look forwards and see where we're heading as a society.

I'll say it again--it's not the inanimate object perpetrating the crimes. It's the people. Lay the blame where it actually belongs. And punish those who are actually responsible.

No question that those who break society's laws have to be dealt with, but of course banning or re-evaluating how and why guns are available isn't really punishing the guns.

Someone asked "if you can have _____ kind of weapon, why not grenades? Or missile launchers? Or icbms?". It was facetious, but it does illustrate a good point. At what point do you say "enough"?

It's not good enough to just say "as an individual I get to choose", because your choices might infringe on another individual's right to choose. To live in a society with others some compromise is necessary, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Hmmmm, either I laid out the idea wrong, or there are some issues with your government I haven't fully appreciated.

It wasn't so much that I was suggesting the government be a watchdog about this, it was more that records should be kept to better see who has what and who's using it. Also, it might be helpful after the fact when something happens and someone is shot. More records might not help, but they certainly couldn't hurt. And sometimes they just may help.

But records that are more open to anybody, not just some army of gov't bureaucrats. I'm a big fan of openess and accountability, and I don't think anybody should be more accountable than a government, since it's an accumulation of power.



Well, the politicians are in a popularity contest. But the bulk of a goverment isn't elected, so that's not the best comparison you've come up with. ;)

And I think it is a good idea for my government to have access to what people are doing. Hopefully most of that information is generally available to everybody, since we're the ones paying for it. Not deeply personal information of course, but that's something that has to be defined more specifically by a group, so that all can live with it.

But in the government's case, let them put some of their overfunded employees to work looking at what the population is doing so that they can better represent us and what we want and maybe even so they can look forwards and see where we're heading as a society.



No question that those who break society's laws have to be dealt with, but of course banning or re-evaluating how and why guns are available isn't really punishing the guns.

Someone asked "if you can have _____ kind of weapon, why not grenades? Or missile launchers? Or icbms?". It was facetious, but it does illustrate a good point. At what point do you say "enough"?

It's not good enough to just say "as an individual I get to choose", because your choices might infringe on another individual's right to choose. To live in a society with others some compromise is necessary, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.


Okee doke. I don't trust government as far as I can throw it. And since I can't even grab it, I can't throw it. So, having the government watch me and what I do will remain unacceptable.

As an individual, you get to choose, until you start infringing upon others' rights. Rights, not feelings. If you scare them, too bad. You have to hurt them or be on their property before they have any right to interfere with what you are doing.

I'm for a much smaller government to actually do what it was created to do. Defend the public from foreign invasion and set up a small infrastructure to support the will of the people. It was never meant to become this gargantuan juggernaut that it is today.

I don't know much of how Canada became independent, but I don't think it was with a war, was it? I could be wrong, though. Becoming independent through a war definitely ingrains a sense of never wanting to go back, making some want to hang on to their weapons, to defend themselves later. I'm not so sure our values are as close as you seem to think they are. Your government is younger than our, and you already have fewer freedoms than we do, it seems (don't know for sure, this is just observational interpretation). You have the government telling you what to do more than we do--again it seems that way. Just because Canadians may or may not be more or less predisposed to commiting crimes doesn't justify changing the US' laws, to match the Canadian ones. I think you guys aren't as compressed as we are, and therefore won't have the same cultural clashes and influences as we might in some areas of the US.

Canada became independant in stages via negotiations with Britain and Britain's general relaxation of of exerted control over what was formerly its "Commonwealth". We never had to use force to attain our independance. And we've enjoyed good relations with Britain to this day.

I know I keep comparing Canada to the US, but it's not to say we're better, it's just to show that some of the ideas that people say wouldn't work do have some precedent and aren't totally pie-in-the-sky ideas. :P

If by "not as compressed" as you are you mean that we have a lower population and a larger country, then you're right. However, something like 90% of our population is within 100 km of the border we share with you, so we are compressed enough to get the sort of conditions that lead to the aforementioned clashes.

And that is your right to feel that way. I completely respect that. But, as I stated before, not everyone is equal in my eyes due to actions, respect given, and other variables that allow me to respect someon in return. I will not automatically respect a human due to the fact that they are human. I will respect their space as long as they respect mine, however. They invade mine, all bets are off. There is a reason our flag, initially, almost said, "Don't tread on me". There is a cultural difference there. What's ours is ours. Not ours to give up for someone's interpretation of the "good of all mankind". Yes, my life and the lives of everyone I care about are more important that a stranger's. They always will be.

Always is a long time, and who can say how you'll feel after a while? I could very well change my stance given certain circumstances and lines of thought. You probably could too. But I understand that this is how you feel, and this is how you've felt for some time now. I hope I haven't come across as saying your feelings are wrong, even though I don't agree with them. I don't feel things have to be an "either or" type of situation. ;)

Don't even get me started on the military. We have no right to be telling anyone in the rest of the world how to handle their affairs. Our military should be downsized by at least half, and brought back within our borders, to help with issues here (hurricanes for instance), and to be ready for an invasion. For defense.

Wow. At the risk of sounding somewhat snide, I find this statement kind of suprising. :P While I know your media is fairly biased towards the current administration (on their knees unzipping the administration's fly, in fact), I have to admit that I'd forgotten that there are some Americans who don't see the world as their fiefdom, with all roads leading to Rome (Washinton). lol

"Peacekeeping not policing!" ;)

That just escalates situations, putting yourself into a situation where you may HAVE to think about defending yourself. Best move in Aikido--don't be there. Don't go looking for trouble, and it has a much tougher time finding you.

Also a good general philosophy. You know, for a right-wing gun-toting redneck, you're alright. :cool:



Since we're neighbours, I'm also looking out for myself. When you have "problems" (emphasis mine), they can easily spill over to us. They do now, in fact. So while I do what happens to you, there's also some self-interest there. I'm not a TOTAL altruist. ;)

[quote]There are a few problems with carrying openly. First, there are some out there that would take the opportunity to disarm you for their own purposes, and gain a nice, new toy. Second, tactically, the one known to carry a weapon is the first to be taken down. It's the wiser tactician that doesn't allow the opponent to know everything about their target. Third, you get some people that are REALLY uncomfortable around weaponry (as evidenced by the number of posts for gun control on this board), and rather than have to argue with everyone that has an issue with a firearm, it's easier just to keep it out of sight, so you can deal with people as people, and not as adversaries on the other side of your argument.

When the Cold War was in full swing, the US and the USSR made a point of letting the others know their capabilities, nuclear-wise. True, they didn't allow the overflights for confirmation, but nonetheless both sides made it very clear about what they were packing.

And I'm glad they did. If they didn't, one side might have acted based on poor understanding and a catastrophe could have enveloped us all. Sometimes obscurity isn't the best way.

I'll sum it up with a rather simple statement (or maybe not, I can get long winded...). Our country was not designed to be for the collective people. It was designed for the individual people. We're not supposed to be looking out for the common good for everyone, because what's good for me is not necessarily good for my neighbor, or someone in another city, or another state. We are trying to make the country as free as possible, so each of us can look out for what's best for us. You can't blanket a country of nearly 300 million people and expect one rule to work for all. This is why we need as few rules as possible that fit as many people as possible. Not 20,000 laws to regulate firearms everywhere. It just doesn't work here.

But it wasn't designed for Zaxon. At least, not to the exclusion of it being designed for Chess Squares, or anybody else.

You need a framework, or a social contract, or whatever you want to name it so that people can exercise what's good for them, but not at the expense of another exercising the same rights. I don't think you'd disagree with me on this, but tell me if I've read you wrong.

The number of rules are not important. The best number is the number it takes to define what the people want/need.

In fact, more might even be better. A general law or rule that says what's allowed. Then more and more shadings on that law that deals with specific examples or conditions.

Otherwise, it becomes impossible for anybody to live as they want, except for the people that do it at the expense of others. And you, current reader, might not be the one on top.

I don't think it matters whether firearms are available three times a block or in just one gun store per major city. Having to drive 45 minutes isn't going to stop me from buying a new carry pistol in the near future.

That was mostly to illustrate my bemusement at the saturation of guns (handguns really) into your society, compared to what I was used to. :)

It's also a big overstatement and a bit inflammatory to suggest that you can 'waltz into' a store and 'just pick up a pistol and ammo.' There is a mandatory background check and a strictly enforced waiting period.

It wasn't meant to be inflammatory, for the reason I said above. I didn't attempt to purchase a gun, and I claim no knowledge as to what would have been involved if I had. I was just saying how the guns were available in a way that they weren't where I'm from. That's all.

Secondly, I don't see regulation of the sale of ammunition as being beneficial. It's just too easy to make your own. I have friends that reload all sorts of ammunition. I'm too lazy to do it myself. I think all that it would accomplish is to drive the prices up and make buying ammo to target shoot with a hassle.

No no, whatever certification you need to show in order to purchase a gun would be the same thing you'd have to show to purchase ammunition. That's all.

Maybe lots of people would learn how to make their own, and actually do it. Lord knows that gunpowder is centuries old, and not exactly complicated. But if it makes things slightly less convenient, is that bad? All it would really do is make you have to show you're certified to use/fire/own a firearm before you can purchase ammunition.

It would hurt the guy without such certification with a black market gun, but how would it hurt anybody who legitimately owns one?

Of course, I know how to make a passable plastique. But if I needed some (don't ask for what, I'm pulling this out of the air) I'd probably prefer to buy professionally manufactured stuff. <shrugs>

Heh. What I meant by the Wal-Mart and pawn shop example was that you can see guns available in so many places that you don't in Canada (where I'm from), so it was much more noticeable. I didn't actually try to purchase any, so I don't know exactly what was involved in doing so. But like I said, to my unused-to-the-sight eyes, there were places to buy guns as frequently as hamburger joints. :P

If it matters, most of the places I'm thinking of are in Nevada, and also Washington state, which are the two states I've spent the most time in.


Fair enough, guns were sold in even more places back in the sixties.



But is there an increase in crime? From what I've read over the years, it appears that if you're in what used to be called a "first world country", you're less likely to be the victim of a violent crime now than you were 25 years ago. This holds true even in the US. No I can't provide a link and of course your own skepticism will have to guide you on whether you want to go over overall stats yourself. But this is my impression of the trends, news media aside.


Since the sixties there has certainly been an upsurge in crime. This started to end in the 80s and have gotten much much safer. Across the spectrum, crime has plummeted here in the US.


Yes, the ridiculous "war on drugs" has done much to waste resources and has definitely enriched a huge number of criminals of all calibre (no thread pun intended ;) ). For any that don't understand the concept, it's basically that if you imperfectly enforce a ban on something that people want, you make it even harder to supress, because the people with the banned thing/substance/information can pass the higher price of production and distribution on to the final consumer.

And of course, when the price goes up for people that desperately want/need whatever it is that's banned, they're sometimes willing or driven to go do things that are injurious to the society that is trying to defend against the onslaught.

The classic example given is the heroin user that resorts to crime to come up with the cash necessary to obtain their next dose.


Plus, if you already commiting 1 crime(possession of large quantities of drugs) then you dont lose too much if you have to commit another crime also. At least half of our murders are from criminals killing other criminals.


As for the "anti-establishment" movement you mentioned, Isanyonehome, I'm not quite able to follow the reasoning behind it. It looks like some from this camp would prefer a very minimal goverment, and largely unchecked behavior for themselves, even if it overlaps on others in a negative way, making it look to me sort of like an "only the strong survive" sort of thing. Not suggesting that the people who are the best shots with a weapon will be the only ones left, I meant it in the metaphorical sense. :P

Well, we were a pretty law abiding society before that(after prohibition ended). The whole no rules, no responsibility hippie thing encourages people to break the law. Sometimes violently. Then the drug war came along etc.

It would hurt the guy without such certification with a black market gun, but how would it hurt anybody who legitimately owns one?


black market gun...okay black market ammo

Okee doke. I don't trust government as far as I can throw it. And since I can't even grab it, I can't throw it. So, having the government watch me and what I do will remain unacceptable.

:rofl:

I'm going to have to remember that one. That's great!

As an individual, you get to choose, until you start infringing upon others' rights. Rights, not feelings. If you scare them, too bad. You have to hurt them or be on their property before they have any right to interfere with what you are doing.

Ah, but isn't it people that are feeling scared that feel they need to have a firearm of some sort to defend themselves against "possible" scenarios? Does that mean you have a plan for when a gigantic meteor smashes in the US? Oh, that's too low a probability? How about eating and exercising so that you lower the likelihood of having a heart attack, so you don't leave your family without you to defend them?

That last bit was deliberately tongue in cheek, as I'm sure you know. This reminder is for anybody who hasn't been following our overall conversation and who might want to jump in and quote just that. :P

I'm for a much smaller government to actually do what it was created to do. Defend the public from foreign invasion and set up a small infrastructure to support the will of the people. It was never meant to become this gargantuan juggernaut that it is today.

Yes, it would be nice if that bloated thing (ours too) could be put on a bit of a diet, or at least pointed in a direction where it could be put to a somewhat better use.

Fair enough, guns were sold in even more places back in the sixties.

I'm reminded of the episode of The Simpsons where Homer gets a gun, and ends up shooting his tv to change the channel, and using his gun to shoot open his beer. :P

Since the sixties there has certainly been an upsurge in crime. This started to end in the 80s and have gotten much much safer. Across the spectrum, crime has plummeted here in the US.

So why do people feel even more of a need now to defend themselves from others, if you're safer now (statistically) than when you were a kid?

Plus, if you already commiting 1 crime(possession of large quantities of drugs) then you dont lose too much if you have to commit another crime also. At least half of our murders are from criminals killing other criminals.

I don't like people being killed, even if they are criminals. I appreciate the idea that "criminals dying = better society", but I don't go along with it.

Of course, that means the other half of your murders involve people that aren't criminals. That's no good either, and it's a hell of a price to pay.

Well, we were a pretty law abiding society before that(after prohibition ended). The whole no rules, no responsibility hippie thing encourages people to break the law. Sometimes violently. Then the drug war came along etc.

Yeah, your history has had a large part in shaping who and what you are today. That doesn't mean that people have to just sit back and accept it. It doesn't hurt to at least debate things, and to wrangle ideas to death. Who knows? A good idea/philosophy/meme could come out of all of this, affect everybody who reads it or hears about it, and affect voting patterns. That's democracy in action! ;)

black market gun...okay black market ammo

If you started keeping better track of ammo (and guns too), the people that are responsible for shifting something from the legitimate market to the black market might stand out more, and they could be dealt with accordingly by the laws you already have in place.

If you started keeping better track of ammo (and guns too), the people that are responsible for shifting something from the legitimate market to the black market might stand out more, and they could be dealt with accordingly by the laws you already have in place.

You miss the point, by making ammo illegal, all you do is provide incentive for black market ammo. This could be from legalammo being pilfered, from ammo being smuggled into the country or simply from people making ammo here.

here is a link to a good article concerning guns, the US , the UK and Australia.

I posted it on another thread.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html

You miss the point, by making ammo illegal, all you do is provide incentive for black market ammo. This could be from legalammo being pilfered, from ammo being smuggled into the country or simply from people making ammo here.

No sir, you miss the point.

I didn't say make ammo illegal, I said "make ammunition sales as restricted as gun sales". Not the waiting period, but the proof showing that you are a legal and responsible gun owner with the training and certification that says it's okay to sell you a gun.

In essence, show your certification card (or whatever it is for you) when you want ammo, or you're going away empty handed. Does it still sound like a bad idea? The more I hear myself say it, the more I think it's a great idea. Doesn't affect legitimate gun owners in the slightest, but inconveniences others.

I'm also not the one pushing to make guns illegal, btw. I happen to think that attitudes need to change first.

No sir, you miss the point.

I didn't say make ammo illegal, I said "make ammunition sales as restricted as gun sales". Not the waiting period, but the proof showing that you are a legal and responsible gun owner with the training and certification that says it's okay to sell you a gun.

In essence, show your certification card (or whatever it is for you) when you want ammo, or you're going away empty handed. Does it still sound like a bad idea? The more I hear myself say it, the more I think it's a great idea. Doesn't affect legitimate gun owners in the slightest, but inconveniences others.

I'm also not the one pushing to make guns illegal, btw. I happen to think that attitudes need to change first.

I understand that you arent trying to make ammo illegal, only restricted. Here is the thing though. A person who wants a gun but cant get the certificate, could get ammo from the same place where he buys his guns e.g. the black market.

I understand that you arent trying to make ammo illegal, only restricted. Here is the thing though. A person who wants a gun but cant get the certificate, could get ammo from the same place where he buys his guns e.g. the black market.

Exactly, and by shining some light on who's selling ammo to who, you highlight the sort of people that maybe shift goods from the legitimate market to the black one.

Not that I expect it to change everything, but at least SOME of that black market ammo was once legitimate, wasn't it?

You can't easily trace it backwards to when it shifted now, but if you made people (I'm talking everybody from the manufacturer to the retailer) more accountable about who they sell too, you might be able to either highlight people who are feeding the black market, or else just cut off that avenue because people wouldn't want to get caught supplying the black market. See what I mean?

And it doesn't (as far as I can see) hamper the licensed legitimate gun owner.

Exactly, and by shining some light on who's selling ammo to who, you highlight the sort of people that maybe shift goods from the legitimate market to the black one.

Not that I expect it to change everything, but at least SOME of that black market ammo was once legitimate, wasn't it?

You can't easily trace it backwards to when it shifted now, but if you made people (I'm talking everybody from the manufacturer to the retailer) more accountable about who they sell too, you might be able to either highlight people who are feeding the black market, or else just cut off that avenue because people wouldn't want to get caught supplying the black market. See what I mean?

And it doesn't (as far as I can see) hamper the licensed legitimate gun owner.


Wouldnt even make a dent. It too easy to smuggle, steal or simply make ammo. Wouldnt be shining lights on anything. many gun enthusiasts make ammo in their garages.

While I understand the reasoning(dont agree with though) behind people who want more gun control, I am completely baffled by people who think the assault weapons ban is a good thing.

You used the term semi auto above, every pistol and revolver is a semi auto; with the exception of some derringers.

You do understand what the term means right?

LOL - I would hazard a stab in the dark that I know more about guns than you do...

Lever action, bolt action, and pump-action weapons aren't semi-autos. Anyway, my beef is primarily against high capacity semi-autos with quickly changable magazines. I can see if you've only read one of my posts in this thread, where the misunderstanding might come from...

Old ground, but I thought I should answer anyway...;)

Wouldnt even make a dent. It too easy to smuggle, steal or simply make ammo. Wouldnt be shining lights on anything. many gun enthusiasts make ammo in their garages.

You've got to be having me on. You don't think it would make a dent? Everybody who isn't a certified gun-owner would immediately turn to making their own ammo, or else people who already make their own would drastically increase production?

With that thinking, there would be stuff blowing up all over your country, since anybody can make explosives fairly easily from the stuff under their sinks. But that's not what happens, why?

Contrary to what you say, I think that removing the easy convenience of anybody being able to buy ammo would make a dent.

Don't you think it's worth trying? Do you have an objection to the idea?

LOL - I would hazard a stab in the dark that I know more about guns than you do...

Lever action, bolt action, and pump-action weapons aren't semi-autos. Anyway, my beef is primarily against high capacity semi-autos with quickly changable magazines. I can see if you've only read one of my posts in this thread, where the misunderstanding might come from...

Old ground, but I thought I should answer anyway...;)

well, I have never seen a lever/bolt action/pump handgun before, but lets leave that aside.

Since you know a great deal about guns, you probably also know that there isnt much differance in shots fired in a firefight between people using a 6-8 shot revolvers and those using 15 shot pistols. Shots fired works out to 2.04 vs 2.53 respectively / incident. There will always be exceptions, but it doesnt seem to me that high capacity clips are going to cause anymore risk to society.

Let's define a term or two here... Just to get some perspective.

For those who don't know, semi auto is a firearm that fires one shot per pull of the trigger. The term applies to pistols as well as rifles.

Which means any handgun is semi auto. Revolvers aren't considered "semi auto" but they do fire once for each trigger pull. It's the nature of the mechanism that is the difference.

People use the term "semi auto" and "assault weapon" without really knowing what that means. I can go out and buy a semiautomatic rifle that doesn't classify as an assault weapon, but is no less effective. Examples include M-1 Garands and SKS'. They don't look like "assault weapons" because they don't have things like pistol grips. :sniper:

So what exactly is it about these weapons that scares people? Are they more effective? Not really. Are they more dangerous? Not really. The answer, friends, is hype. Gun control advocates overstate the characteristics of assault weapons and inflate statistics, but at the end of the day, they're not such a big deal.

If there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the US Gov't. from making such decisions, then of course it is their right. Moreover, who do you think gave them such rights? The people did. If you think that the aforementioned is from a mouth w/ closed eyes, you have officially been warped by Michael Moore and F911. Does that mean I'm conservative, hell no. Does THAT mean I'm liberal? Nope. I really am quite sick of politics and don't wish to be either one because both parties are at a near all time worst as far as intelligence and morals go.

Is it the right decision to ban semi-auto and related weapons? In my opinion, not even.

Can I ask an odd question:

Some people here seem to be opposed to tighter gun control mainly on the basis that it is an infringement on their rights. I also get the feeling that the main basis of some people's arguments is that any right that has already been given can never be taken away.

My query is this: once upon a time, people in (parts of) the USA had the right to own slaves...should that right never have been reversed? (I admit I don't know the consitution line and verse, so my assumption that this was a right may be flawed).

P.S. If you think this is a ludicrous analogy, to me it is no more ludicrous that comparing gun ownership to automobile ownership. ;)

P.P.S. I have still seen no clear answer (any answer?) on the question "If guns are for civil defence (from a foreign invader or corrupt internal government), why can't civlians own anti-tank launchers and surface-to-air missiles?"...

So what exactly is it about these weapons that scares people? Are they more effective? Not really. Are they more dangerous? Not really. The answer, friends, is hype. Gun control advocates overstate the characteristics of assault weapons and inflate statistics, but at the end of the day, they're not such a big deal.

Oh, I don't know. The difference in rate of fire between a bolt action rifle and one that shoots as fast as I pull the trigger while being able to maintain my bead on the target might be more of a big deal that you say.

Everybody's seen that clip of Kennedy being shot. Then you get the obligatory scene where they show someone trying to duplicate it. BANG, bolt up, back, forward, bold down, aim, BANG.

As opposed to BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG. I see a difference. <shrugs>

Actually the constitution banned slavery from the very start, but it took another 100 years to actually implement it. Your theory and logic are flawed as nothing is really different at all regarding gun ownership and slavery, the constitiution is still valid on both issues. Legislation from the bench prevented slavery from being abolished back then, and is responsible for attempts to ban guns now. If the original meaning were carried out from the beggining, we would have ceased slavery the day it was ratified, and we would have never had an issue with guns.

well, I have never seen a lever/bolt action/pump handgun before, but lets leave that aside.

Since you know a great deal about guns, you probably also know that there isnt much differance in shots fired in a firefight between people using a 6-8 shot revolvers and those using 15 shot pistols. Shots fired works out to 2.04 vs 2.53 respectively / incident. There will always be exceptions, but it doesnt seem to me that high capacity clips are going to cause anymore risk to society.

Ever heard of spree killings or mass murders?

Seriously dude, talk to a cop some day. Ask them if they'd rather be facing down someone with a double-barrell shotgun, or a 30 round semi-auto AK...maybe even with a 3-round burst adapter that doesn't require a federal license (I don't know if that's changed, but you used to be able to buy 3 round burst adapters for most semi-auto rifles which didn't require any special licensing)

P.S. How did hanguns become the exclusive conversation? I'm talking about firearms in general - I never even used the term longarm (rifle) or sidearm (pistol). Or do you assume that only handguns are used in crimes? I'm honestly confused now...

With that thinking, there would be stuff blowing up all over your country, since anybody can make explosives fairly easily from the stuff under their sinks. But that's not what happens, why?



this statement is bolstering my point. Making them legal or illegal does not affect the illegal supply. The reason things arent blowing up all over thecountry is that there isnt a strong demand for explosives. If there was, people would be making it all over the place.


Don't you think it's worth trying? Do you have an objection to the idea?

Its already being done. Many states/counties require permits for ammo. Hasnt impacted the illegal supply. "Straw" purchases for guns happen now, it would be even easier for "straw" ammo purchases.

As to an objection, yes, well I guess I do. I used to think that registration was a reasonable thing to do, and then I started to read up on the things registration has repeatedly led to.

All these restriction, bans, control never have their intended effect. NEVER. And often they have some very bad unintended consequenses.

I think the Govt should just leave it alone. I like background checks, but the FBI is refusing to destroy the records as they are obligated to do. The brady campaign likes to make a big stink about how many people were stopped from buying guns because of these background checks. What they fail to mention is that almost ALL of them are never prosecuted because it was either a) a mistake on the govts side b) unintentional (such as someone having some sort of minor infraction on their record c) the real criminals have no difficulty getting their guns.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people?...with guns.

You're not making it any better by freely allowing people to buy guns of all sorts, including...*cough*assault weapons*cough* like the Colt AR-15, which is the derivative of the M-16, the world's frontline assault rifle in service today. Gun laws shouldn't be relaxed...


So what exactly is it about these weapons that scares people? Are they more effective? Not really. Are they more dangerous? Not really. The answer, friends, is hype. Gun control advocates overstate the characteristics of assault weapons and inflate statistics, but at the end of the day, they're not such a big deal.


Not really? So, then, an army armed with those newfangled XM-8s wouldn't have much of an advantage over the Civil War rifles? I...think they might. I'm not a fan of guns, but not adamant about gun control either...we just need to make sure that guns are kept out of the wrong hands.

Can I ask an odd question:

Yes, and history will bear us out on that. ;)

Some people here seem to be opposed to tighter gun control mainly on the basis that it is an infringement on their rights. I also get the feeling that the main basis of some people's arguments is that any right that has already been given can never be taken away.

I've noticed this too. None of these granted rights are holy writ. However, some of them are the basis for the society, and shouldn't be changed/removed without good reason. Even WITH good reason, you can't pull an underpinning out of something without it falling into a new shape. Freedom of speech would be one I'd rate like this.

My query is this: once upon a time, people in (parts of) the USA had the right to own slaves...should that right never have been reversed? (I admit I don't know the consitution line and verse, so my assumption that this was a right may be flawed).

Was this actually a right? Because I think slavery was going on before the US constitution was penned, and I'm not sure that it even mentions slaves specifically.

P.S. If you think this is a ludicrous analogy, to me it is no more ludicrous that comparing gun ownership to automobile ownership. ;)

Well, as long as people don't mistake the analogy with the actual thing, the comparison isn't bad as it's just used to illustrate a point.

P.P.S. I have still seen no clear answer (any answer?) on the question "If guns are for civil defence (from a foreign invader or corrupt internal government), why can't civlians own anti-tank launchers and surface-to-air missiles?"...

Because they're probably too expensive, and they're a bit bulky to sell in the typical store. :P

We here in Apathilazia do not have 'gun control' per se.
People here can own as many firearms as they like but bullets are prohibitively expensive so if somebody wants to kill someone else the dispute had better be worth the cost of the ammunition. ;)

Ever heard of spree killings or mass murders?

Look, they happen. Very Very rarely but they happen. Banning large cap clips only means the guy is gonna have to change clips sooner or he picked up some pre ban clips. I have a couple for my beretta(bought them from a retired police officer). At very best, this measure will slightly slow down the odd lunatic. The criminals will still have access



Seriously dude, talk to a cop some day. Ask them if they'd rather be facing down someone with a double-barrell shotgun, or a 30 round semi-auto AK...


I might be wrong about this, but I dont think ak ammo goes through standard police kevlar while a shotgun is gonna put him down on the floor. Why are we even talking about this, these types of weapons are used in less than 2% of all GUN crimes, let alone crimes in general. Handguns are the weapons of choice for criminals.


maybe even with a 3-round burst adapter that doesn't require a federal license (I don't know if that's changed, but you used to be able to buy 3 round burst adapters for most semi-auto rifles which didn't require any special licensing)

need the license. I dont know about the AKs, but the post ban ar15s dont convert without a LOT of work if at all. But once again, these weapons arent used by criminals.


P.S. How did hanguns become the exclusive conversation? I'm talking about firearms in general - I never even used the term longarm (rifle) or sidearm (pistol). Or do you assume that only handguns are used in crimes? I'm honestly confused now...

go back to the post that you originally took a long time answering(I think it was the one before you saying you know more than me about guns(which you very easily might)) I was just making a point about semi autos, you hadnt clarified that you are concerned with the clip size at that point in the discussion.

Oh, and yes, criminals almost exclusively use handguns.

And the point of the shots fired / incident was to illustrate that large clip sizes dont matter much. In both those cases, the rounds fired were far below the clip capacity of the weapon. I dont expect shots fired with regard to long arms would be much differant.

OK, this is a minor detail, but I just want to clarify two things that have been pissing me off.

1. Clip vs Magazine.
A clip is something that holds a number of cartridges loosely together. See - stripper clips (holds a number of cartridges together so they can be pushed down into a magazine), en bloc clips.
A magazine is a boxlike device with a follower compessed by a spring which pushes cartridges upwards towards the action. See - most guns today.

2. Bullet vs cartridge/round.
A bullet is usually a conical, round piece of copper-coated lead which is expelled from the barrel of a gun by the force of burning gunpower.
A cartridge is the name for the overall device - case, primer, power, and bullet.
Cartidges go into a gun, bullets come out the buisness end, except for muzzleloaders.

OK, this is a minor detail, but I just want to clarify two things that have been pissing me off.

1. Clip vs Magazine. A clip is something that holds a number of cartridges loosely together. See - stripper clips, en bloc clips.
A magazine is a boxlike device with a follower compessed by a spring which pushes cartridges upwards towards the action. See - most guns today.

2. Bullet vs cartridge/round. A bullet is usually a conical, round piece of copper-coated lead which is expelled from the barrel of a gun by the force of burning gunpower.
A cartridge is the name for the overall device - case, primer, power, and bullet.
Cartidges go into a gun, bullets come out the buisness end.

You are correct. You ever use a gun with one of those stripper clips btw? I did when I was a kid, gotta be real careful, those edges get sharp.

Nope, I've never been really into rifles, except M1 Garands (I plan on getting a CMP Garand ASAP) and M14/M1A's. Maybe benchrest when I get older and much richer. Waiting for LRB to make full rifles - Fulton makes good sticks, but they're expensive, and Springfield has had some quality assurance problems of late. If you get a good rifle, it's really good, but they have had their share of bad ones.

The US government of the day more or less has the power to do anything it wants whether the population believes it is an infringement of civil liberties or not. Take some of the components of the Patriot Act for example. If it wants to tighten gun control laws then it can, no problem. The recourse for those who don't like such an avenue is to vote for someone else.

Our country has very tight gun control laws and a culture where the majority of people do not want to own a gun, and as a result much fewer people get shot per capita than in the US. It is true guns are out there, and yes the criminal element do source and use them, but nowhere near as much.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, well yes...and no. People that have guns kill a lot more people than they would if they didn't. Personally I would rather be in a place where I wouldn't get shot at rather than a place where I need to be prepared to shoot back. Tight gun contorls represent the former and loose contols the latter.

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

Yes! You hillbilly Yee-Haws are all the same, up North were more civilized than to carry around semi-Auto weapons shooting at defenceless animals, Im just kidding, but seriously hunt with a rifle a semi-Auto takes the sport out of it, I mean, dont you agree?

The US government of the day more or less has the power to do anything it wants whether the population believes it is an infringement of civil liberties or not. Take some of the components of the Patriot Act for example. If it wants to tighten gun control laws then it can, no problem. The recourse for those who don't like such an avenue is to vote for someone else.

Our country has very tight gun control laws and a culture where the majority of people do not want to own a gun, and as a result much fewer people get shot per capita than in the US. It is true guns are out there, and yes the criminal element do source and use them, but nowhere near as much.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, well yes...and no. People that have guns kill a lot more people than they would if they didn't. Personally I would rather be in a place where I wouldn't get shot at rather than a place where I need to be prepared to shoot back. Tight gun contorls represent the former and loose contols the latter.

WE DONT HAVE TIGHT GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE YOU KIDDING? RIGHT NOW IN OUR COUNTRY ITS EASIER TO BUY A GUN THAN A CAR THAT MUST BE STOPPED! Like the average citizen really needs to have guns, please, thats pothetic.

if any man or woman trys to steal my guns they will get a face full of lead :sniper: and a cap in thear ass :mp5:

The _politicians_ (in both the government and the opposition) have whatever power _you_ give them. If this includes introducing new laws and changing the consititution, the YES - THEY HAVE THE POWER.

However, if enough of the population takes a dislike to the new law/constitution ammendment, then I'd expect that the politicians would then find themselves voted out, and the laws changed back......

Remember, society changes all the time - what was legal yesterday, is _illegal_ today, but can be made legal again tomorrow......

No its the oppisite, yesterday it was illegal today it was legal and it may be legal again tomorow.

if any man or woman trys to steal my guns they will get a face full of lead :sniper: and a cap in thear ass :mp5:

Your an asshole and also a yee-haw probably from Texas Alabama or another crazy southern state.

I voted no by accident!

Ah, but isn't it people that are feeling scared that feel they need to have a firearm of some sort to defend themselves against "possible" scenarios? Does that mean you have a plan for when a gigantic meteor smashes in the US? Oh, that's too low a probability? How about eating and exercising so that you lower the likelihood of having a heart attack, so you don't leave your family without you to defend them?

That last bit was deliberately tongue in cheek, as I'm sure you know. This reminder is for anybody who hasn't been following our overall conversation and who might want to jump in and quote just that. :P



Yes, it would be nice if that bloated thing (ours too) could be put on a bit of a diet, or at least pointed in a direction where it could be put to a somewhat better use.

Fear has nothing to do with my decisions to own firearms. I enjoy target shooting, plinking, indoor leagues, outdoor long range shooting. None of those activities are illegal. None of those activities are wrong. By restricting guns and restricting ammunition you are punishing me, and millions of law abiding citizens who exorcise their rights.

My familiarity with guns, and my rather pragmatic outlook on life leads me to believe that guns provide a means to defend myself and my family from unforseen situations.

What do people have against my being prepared?

I voted no by accident!


Your probably the same type who couldnt figure out the florida ballots in 2000.

Wow. talk about a split vote.

Your probably the same type who couldnt figure out the florida ballots in 2000.

Ok, that wasnt exactly needed... Impossible as it sounds, let's keep the flamebaits out.

Fear has nothing to do with my decisions to own firearms. I enjoy target shooting, plinking, indoor leagues, outdoor long range shooting. None of those activities are illegal. None of those activities are wrong. By restricting guns and restricting ammunition you are punishing me, and millions of law abiding citizens who exorcise their rights.

My familiarity with guns, and my rather pragmatic outlook on life leads me to believe that guns provide a means to defend myself and my family from unforseen situations.

What do people have against my being prepared?
for the last time

guns do not emit a magically invisible barrier that protects your and your surroundings from proectiles, blunt objects, and stabbings

for the last time

guns do not emit a magically invisible barrier that protects your and your surroundings from proectiles, blunt objects, and stabbings

Chess, I guess when I write certain words you read completely different words.

I say I can use guns to defend myself, you read "guns protect me from harm". I never said that.

What would you do Chess.. if someone attacked you? Would you defend yourself? Would you defend your family? If so, how would you do that? All this time I have never seen you broach that subject.

Ok, that wasnt exactly needed... Impossible as it sounds, let's keep the flamebaits out.

I couldnt help it after reading post #1099

What would you do Chess.. if someone attacked you? Would you defend yourself? Would you defend your family? If so, how would you do that? All this time I have never seen you broach that subject.
i woudlnt fight for the need to have an assault weapon and fight for making it easier for the attacker to have an assault weapon

I couldnt help it after reading post #1099
I reported that post... yours didnt warrant that, just a friendly nudge.

i woudlnt fight for the need to have an assault weapon and fight for making it easier for the attacker to have an assault weapon

Answer the question if you please.

Fear has nothing to do with my decisions to own firearms. I enjoy target shooting, plinking, indoor leagues, outdoor long range shooting. None of those activities are illegal. None of those activities are wrong. By restricting guns and restricting ammunition you are punishing me, and millions of law abiding citizens who exorcise their rights.

You don't feel you're being punished by not being allowed to seed your property with claymore landmines and then throw rocks at the lawn to watch them explode, do you?

There are lots of things that you can do with weapons that don't hurt anybody, those aren't the things that concern people. It's when people get hurt that some scrutiny has to be given, and since there's no way you can prevent shooting people while at the same time letting people shoot targets, one might have to give up an enjoyable activity in order to comply with people's safety.

My familiarity with guns, and my rather pragmatic outlook on life leads me to believe that guns provide a means to defend myself and my family from unforseen situations.

What do people have against my being prepared?

How are you prepared for a major meteroid strike? Nuclear war? Anarchy? The sudden melting of the polar icecaps? Volcano? Et cetera...

For that matter, are you prepared against a trucker's strike? Almost overnight you wouldn't be able to buy food. Got stockpiles?

The "being prepared" thing isn't much of an argument, as you could extend it to anything. If someone breaks into your house when you're sitting in the chair watching tv, does the gun help you? What if more that one person breaks in, and one goes through your house while another keeps you at bay? And the searching one finds your gun(s)? How are you prepared for that?

I'm not attacking you, but it does sound a bit silly. No offense. :cool:

*sigh*

Well, I can't find my pocket constitution so I repeat as close from memory as I can.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the public to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Before we yell about this being made up, lets look at our bill of rights. Okay, notice the phrase A well regulated militia That gives the federal government the right to regulate what weapons people can own, how, and where they can buy them.

Now for some History.

The founding fathers were afraid of democracy. Don't believe me? Go back and look at U.S. history notes. The founders riddled the constitution with stopgap measures to halt pure democracy. They didn't even want the bill of rights in the first place but faced serious opposition from Sam Adams and Patrick Henry (gun nuts can thank those two), so they had to put in the Bill of Rights.

Since they hated pure democracy, the founders put in a provision that gave them enough control over what the populace did to prevent successful armed uprisings. Mainly, the right of the federal government to regulate the arms industry. Now true, you do have the right to own guns, but, due to the loophole the founders put in, the government gets to regulate that gun.

Still don't believe me? Well, its up to you to look back into history for yourself then.

Er...well, i dont often come on here, and so, i may as well get this over with, so, here is one of my few posts, and a rebuttal:

You see, there is no loophole, your mi-nute overview of history is both biased, and totally incorrect, i assuje that you believed Michael Belleises whennhis book came out?

its of no consequence.

Now, the founding fathers were hardly afraid of Pure Democracy, they were merely afraid that if the idiotic bunch that existed then, ignorant as they were, were to decide elections, then chaos would ensue, dont believe me?

Read their letters to one another.

Regardless, there is no loophole in the 2nd amendment,

the term "a well regulated militia" is in parentheses, which of course, as everyone who knows English means;

an editorial afterthought.

Now, let us explore what a "militia" was in the 18th century, shall we?

The "militia" according to thomas Jefferson (a person you neglected to mention) as well, if i remember correctly, to other Founding fathers, i believe Washington, and maybe hamlton among them, were the normal, everyday people.

the term ",ilitia" in the revolutionary time, meant an armed people, which is the exact original definition of that word.

however, since in these times, a militia is regulated by the government, Liberals have come to believe that he government has a right to find loopholes in the constitution.

Or are you saying that mere politiking, which you accuse the gun-ban lobby of (gun-show loophole, anyone?), is the very key to your arguments, a dishonorable hypocrisy if there ever was one.

As for your US history notes, those are interpretations, dependent on hioghly cryptic terms, still debated as i type.

A for looking back into history, i have, and, this is my result, i can only hope that others will notice this, and use this post to debate with you until you give up with your contradictions.

And one final thing, you arue about what banning semiautomatic weapon will do, but, what effect has banning them had?

Check that, before debating this any further,

My view is that guns should be restricted to the Police and Millitary. Guns are bad. But there are a lot of morons out there who like guns, such as the horrible people known as hunters, whom I despise with ever fiber of my being. But I won't go into that right now. My view is that to appease the mindless masses of the NRA and thier ilk, I decree that background checks not only check the background of the potential gun owner, but also those of the people around him/her to make sure that the gun won't likely fall into the wrong hands. What good is my decree? It is redeemable for one free cookie at the Pongoarian House of Cookies.

Now for my loathing of hunters. I am sure that any hunters are bound to be offended by now, and I think that's great. I'm trying to offend you, for reasons that I will now explain. I feel it is the greatest sin of all to commint an act of violence out of anything other than revenge or nescecity. I have no problem with those who need to hunt to survive and would die if they didn't. A lifeforms survival depends greatly on the deaths of others. However, I hate those who hunt solely for sport. There is no way to justify killing an innocent animal just so you can have something hideous above your fireplace. The difference as I see it between humans and animals is that we they don't kill eachother for fun.

The greatest video game ever made is the one where the deer gets revenge on the hunters.

And one final thing, you arue about what banning semiautomatic weapon will do, but, what effect has banning them had?

Check that, before debating this any further,

<shrugs> Illustrating that Eric Harris's parents are criminals, since I believe the Tek-9 was one of those semiautomatic weapons that were banned.

I don't remember any McDonalds or post office shooting at high rates of fire for the past ten years in the US either, offhand

Now for my loathing of hunters. I am sure that any hunters are bound to be offended by now, and I think that's great. I'm trying to offend you, for reasons that I will now explain. I feel it is the greatest sin of all to commint an act of violence out of anything other than revenge or nescecity. I have no problem with those who need to hunt to survive and would die if they didn't. A lifeforms survival depends greatly on the deaths of others. However, I hate those who hunt solely for sport. There is no way to justify killing an innocent animal just so you can have something hideous above your fireplace. The difference as I see it between humans and animals is that we they don't kill eachother for fun.

While I don't much care for trophy hunting either, human beings evolved to eat meat. If you're in a place with a sufficient population of the animal you're hunting, and you eat (not solely you, that's a lot of deer) what you shoot, I'm pretty okay with that.

I've been known to fish on occasion.

<shrugs> Illustrating that Eric Harris's parents are criminals, since I believe the Tek-9 was one of those semiautomatic weapons that were banned.

I don't remember any McDonalds or post office shooting at high rates of fire for the past ten years in the US either, offhand


Perhaps, but, that does go into a "supposedly" unrelated topic, the Media, which controls all popular flow of information...

after all, you never hear anything about it if its not reported, now, do you?

regardless, can you show crime statistics?

Or, i meant that one guy that i originally quoted from...here' s/he go anyway?

Oh well...

also, I was reffereing to making the streets any safer, after all, isnt that the justification for banning guns?

making people safe?

and, if so, has the semi-quto ban worked to that degree?

Check the Cenetrs for Disease Comntrol, it would be a most interesting thing.

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. Where in the name of common sense are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens?" Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers (No 29)

That is why regular citizens are allowed arms that are almost equal to our military.(small arms practically the exact same with ffl,c3l etc)


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms."-Richard Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, (1788

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.

I got about 20 or 30 more if were slow.

Perhaps, but, that does go into a "supposedly" unrelated topic, the Media, which controls all popular flow of information...

after all, you never hear anything about it if its not reported, now, do you?

regardless, can you show crime statistics?

Er... I'm not sure where to go with this. Does this mean if I show crime statistics (I suggest you comb back through the past ten pages of posts or so, lots of people have put up links) you'll respond to anything by saying "that's just what they say"?

also, I was reffereing to making the streets any safer, after all, isnt that the justification for banning guns?

Well, if you're talking about semi-automatic guns, I don't have specific statistics at my fingertips. But the thread has wandered from the OP somewhere, and we've been mostly talking about the merits and flaws of how guns are regulated, and when it's okay to use them on a human being etc.

Check the Cenetrs for Disease Comntrol, it would be a most interesting thing.

Why, do they keep stats on people that have contracted infections following being shot? :P

[QUOTE=Faithfull-freedom
<various quotes snipped for brevity>

I got about 20 or 30 more if were slow.[/QUOTE]

Got any from the past 50 years or so? It was a different country 200+ years ago. :)

You don't feel you're being punished by not being allowed to seed your property with claymore landmines and then throw rocks at the lawn to watch them explode, do you?

Nope, dont feel that way at all. Should I?

There are lots of things that you can do with weapons that don't hurt anybody, those aren't the things that concern people. It's when people get hurt that some scrutiny has to be given, and since there's no way you can prevent shooting people while at the same time letting people shoot targets, one might have to give up an enjoyable activity in order to comply with people's safety.

That's the crux of the matter. Im saying that my gun ownership, and that of other responsible people does not impact negatively on the publics safety. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that shows that in any conclusive manner. I have seen evidence that the opposite is true.

How are you prepared for a major meteroid strike? Nuclear war? Anarchy? The sudden melting of the polar icecaps? Volcano? Et cetera...

For that matter, are you prepared against a trucker's strike? Almost overnight you wouldn't be able to buy food. Got stockpiles?

The "being prepared" thing isn't much of an argument, as you could extend it to anything. If someone breaks into your house when you're sitting in the chair watching tv, does the gun help you? What if more that one person breaks in, and one goes through your house while another keeps you at bay? And the searching one finds your gun(s)? How are you prepared for that?

I'm not attacking you, but it does sound a bit silly. No offense. :cool:

Again, it seems to be an all of nothing type of approach. If I cant be prepared for a meteor strike, nuclear war etc, I shouldn't be prepared for criminals breaking into my house?

I have no control over a meteor strike, volcano, ice caps etc etc etc. But the one thing I do have control over, you suggest that I shouldnt? That's what seems silly to me. To equate a criminal breaking into my house to a global thermonuclear war.

Got any from the past 50 years or so? It was a different country 200+ years ago. :)

The quotes are appropriate concidering it has been suggested that the 2nd amendment didnt refer to the people's right to own "arms". Quoting the people of the time who had a good hand in writing the 2nd amendment goes a long way to figuring out just what they meant by shall not be infringed.

Nope, dont feel that way at all. Should I?

I'm not here to tell you what you should feel. Far from it, I've made a point of asking often in my posts what the person I'm replying to does feel.

You were saying that any kind of restriction on guns or ammunition is punishing you. This isn't true, since to punish you would require intent to subject you to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault. That's not the same as saying "you don't get to do this anymore".

That's the crux of the matter. Im saying that my gun ownership, and that of other responsible people does not impact negatively on the publics safety. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that shows that in any conclusive manner. I have seen evidence that the opposite is true.

Not that I'm out for banning firearms, or that I ever have, but do you see evidence that if nobody had guns people would be shot?

Okay, how about if only licensed "responsible" people had guns?

Because that's how it ought to be. But it's not. How then to get to that? Some things will have to change, because lots of people have guns that shouldn't in your country. And more people get shot there than any comparable country.

But any way of changing the trend towards violence is going to start with the law-abiding citizens. So why the resistance to change?

Again, it seems to be an all of nothing type of approach. If I cant be prepared for a meteor strike, nuclear war etc, I shouldn't be prepared for criminals breaking into my house?

Our concepts of what "prepared for criminals breaking into my house" are a little different. If you don't have the gun ready at hand when someone breaks in, you're not going to get a chance to use it. And if that's the case, then you've just added to the problem if the criminal(s) find it and take it. How's that preparation looking now? You've just made everybody else's life a little less safe.

I have no control over a meteor strike, volcano, ice caps etc etc etc. But the one thing I do have control over, you suggest that I shouldnt? That's what seems silly to me. To equate a criminal breaking into my house to a global thermonuclear war.

If you're in a democracy, and indeed in a land where "anybody can grow up to be president" as we always hear people say, then you've got control over quite a lot. You have avenues into many different aspects of your country's power structure. Have you exercised those? Or do you just want to be left alone in your own castle?

The quotes are appropriate concidering it has been suggested that the 2nd amendment didnt refer to the people's right to own "arms". Quoting the people of the time who had a good hand in writing the 2nd amendment goes a long way to figuring out just what they meant by shall not be infringed.

Sure, but all of that (quotes and amendment) were written in a different time, when the country was much different. Like I keep saying, it's not Holy Writ. You take what works, and discard the debris.

I'm not here to tell you what you should feel. Far from it, I've made a point of asking often in my posts what the person I'm replying to does feel.

You were saying that any kind of restriction on guns or ammunition is punishing you. This isn't true, since to punish you would require intent to subject you to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault. That's not the same as saying "you don't get to do this anymore".

Perhaps punishment wasnt the right word... what word would you use to represent the revocation of my rights?

Not that I'm out for banning firearms, or that I ever have, but do you see evidence that if nobody had guns people would be shot?

1. It is an impossibility to get to the point where nobody had guns.
2. Do you see the evidence that if only the criminals had guns, citizens would be substantially less safe?

Okay, how about if only licensed "responsible" people had guns?

Because that's how it ought to be. But it's not. How then to get to that? Some things will have to change, because lots of people have guns that shouldn't in your country. And more people get shot there than any comparable country.

I do not trust my government very far tho so no, I dont think licensing is a good thing. What if you changed your statement to "how about if only 'responsible' people had guns?" I would be all for that.

But any way of changing the trend towards violence is going to start with the law-abiding citizens. So why the resistance to change?

Because you are suggesting I lay down my arms and make my self dependant on an ineffectual police force in preventing crime. They are pretty good at punishing criminals, but they do mostly squat when it comes to preventing it.

Our concepts of what "prepared for criminals breaking into my house" are a little different. If you don't have the gun ready at hand when someone breaks in, you're not going to get a chance to use it. And if that's the case, then you've just added to the problem if the criminal(s) find it and take it. How's that preparation looking now? You've just made everybody else's life a little less safe.

I have stated a few times how I keep the guns that are not in my direct physical control. Nobody, short of a bulldozer, plasma torch and a whole lotta time on their hands are going to get them.
If I have a gun on me, I would still feel prepared. If I dont have a gun "ready at hand" then like I have said before, I will do my best to not provoke the criminal.

If you're in a democracy, and indeed in a land where "anybody can grow up to be president" as we always hear people say, then you've got control over quite a lot. You have avenues into many different aspects of your country's power structure. Have you exercised those? Or do you just want to be left alone in your own castle?

And if I did just wish to be left alone in my own castle (you dont know how close you've come there), is that not my right?
Actually, much to my wifes chagrin, I do avail myself to those avenues. (She's a liberal, and has forbade me to speak of politics in the house... I do my part to ensure domestic tranquility)

Sure, but all of that (quotes and amendment) were written in a different time, when the country was much different. Like I keep saying, it's not Holy Writ. You take what works, and discard the debris.

Hmmm.. my take on that subject is you either have faith in the document, or you dont. I have great reservation about discarding the debris. Im using illogical extreme here to prove a point.... what if someday some group of people begin to think that freedom of speech has become debris? Where do you draw the line?

Perhaps punishment wasnt the right word... what word would you use to represent the revocation of my rights?

"Correcting something that seemed like a good idea but didn't work, and in fact caused more problems than it solved." :)

1. It is an impossibility to get to the point where nobody had guns.

So what? It was just meant to be far away endpoint to frame my next question. :)

2. Do you see the evidence that if only the criminals had guns, citizens would be substantially less safe?

I'm not the one saying I need/want a gun to defend myself against criminals, especially armed ones. Answer the question yourself. :P

I do not trust my government very far tho so no, I dont think licensing is a good thing. What if you changed your statement to "how about if only 'responsible' people had guns?" I would be all for that.

Without using the government (or something similar), how would you set up a system in which only "responsible" people had guns, if you're all for it?

Because you are suggesting I lay down my arms and make my self dependant on an ineffectual police force in preventing crime. They are pretty good at punishing criminals, but they do mostly squat when it comes to preventing it.

You're partly right. We have as many guns per capita here as you do in the US. And yet a disproportionately comparable number of people get shot in your country, but not mine. Or in England, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries. Why is that? We've all got guns.

Who ever told you to put down your gun? If you go back through the bulk of my posts, I'm more concerned about people not getting shot.

I have stated a few times how I keep the guns that are not in my direct physical control. Nobody, short of a bulldozer, plasma torch and a whole lotta time on their hands are going to get them.
If I have a gun on me, I would still feel prepared. If I dont have a gun "ready at hand" then like I have said before, I will do my best to not provoke the criminal.

I haven't asked for more from anybody. :)

And if I did just wish to be left alone in my own castle (you dont know how close you've come there), is that not my right?

To tell you the truth, I don't know that it is. You have the right not to participate in your society I suppose, but you're still a part of it. And it could be said that to reap the benefits of being a member of your society, there are some responsibilities that come along with it.

Actually, much to my wifes chagrin, I do avail myself to those avenues. (She's a liberal, and has forbade me to speak of politics in the house... I do my part to ensure domestic tranquility)

This is why this sort of thing is beneficial - typing in the house isn't the same as talking. ;)

first of all i havent read all of the threads but i will put in my two cents on the ones i have read.first of all i dont think semi auto weapons should be outlawd out right nor do i think they will be.more than likely you will have to have some type of license to have on and no criminal record which would be acceptable to me.another thing is alot of people said that if guns were outlawed that they would have to prie them from there cold dead fingers.i dont belive this would happen either because alot of guns are family heirlooms passed down and they have no right to take them . what will happen is you will no longer be able to buy ammuniton for your firearms without the proper license effectivly rendering most guns usless to people who cant affored or arent qulifide to have them or just dont hunt.

Hmmm.. my take on that subject is you either have faith in the document, or you dont. I have great reservation about discarding the debris. Im using illogical extreme here to prove a point.... what if someday some group of people begin to think that freedom of speech has become debris? Where do you draw the line?

You don't. People of the now have to decide what works for them, and lay the groundwork for what their children and successors will inherit. The people that came before them are dust and no longer get to contribute their opinion, except in the recordings of their thoughts that they've left. The current population has access to those thoughts, and can weight them accordingly.

But for now, are you satisfied for the reason(s) that so many people get shot with guns in the US?

Because if you're not, then what are you going to do to shift things in the direction that you want? Other than just throwing your hands in the air and retreating to that castle of yours? You hermit. ;)

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. Where in the name of common sense are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens?" Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers (No 29)

That is why regular citizens are allowed arms that are almost equal to our military.(small arms practically the exact same with ffl,c3l etc)


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms."-Richard Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, (1788

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.

I got about 20 or 30 more if were slow.


Any of those 20 or 30 include quotes after the invention of semi-full auto weapons with a large detachable magazine? How about after the invention of tanks and APCs, and ground attack aircraft?

And for about the 99th time I ask - IF THE TRUE REASON FOR GUN OWNERSHIP IS DEFENCE OF ONESELF FROM FOREIGN INVADERS OR A CORRUPT INTERNAL GOVERNMENT, WHY THEN CAN'T PRIVATE CITIZENS OWN AT LAUNCHERS AND SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES? (All caps because no-one seemed to notice the other 98 times I asked). Do you really think, if a dictatorship somehow rose in America, they would not employ MBTs, APCs, attack choppers and ground attack aircaft? Do you think Joe Schmoe waving an Armalite at the sky will frighten off an AH-64? You (not saying you personally, but many here) are hiding behind an outdated notion of national defence to justify getting a buzz from owning and firing the "biggest-baddest" guns...

Any of those 20 or 30 include quotes after the invention of semi-full auto weapons with a large detachable magazine? How about after the invention of tanks and APCs, and ground attack aircraft?

And for about the 99th time I ask - IF THE TRUE REASON FOR GUN OWNERSHIP IS DEFENCE OF ONESELF FROM FOREIGN INVADERS OR A CORRUPT INTERNAL GOVERNMENT, WHY THEN CAN'T PRIVATE CITIZENS OWN AT LAUNCHERS AND SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES? (All caps because no-one seemed to notice the other 98 times I asked). Do you really think, if a dictatorship somehow rose in America, they would not employ MBTs, APCs, attack choppers and ground attack aircaft? Do you think Joe Schmoe waving an Armalite at the sky will frighten off an AH-64? You (not saying you personally, but many here) are hiding behind an outdated notion of national defence to justify getting a buzz from owning and firing the "biggest-baddest" guns...
Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for president, has gone on record as saying that if you want a F-16, you should have it. That's his interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and if nothing else it's admirably hard-line. Of course, not many can afford the price of buying, training, and maintaining a F-16...

The general prohibition on stealing is infinitely more important than a single thief's life. Without property rights human suffering would be immense as can be seen from countries that deny them. Besides, if someone is on your property stealing then you must assume that you are in personal danger. Such a person may well be armed and is a potential danger to you and your family, your priority should be defending your property without exposing yourself and family to any more danger than is necessary. I'm not saying you should always shoot them, just if you are endangered.

Oh, I'M sorry i did not make myself clear enough, I don't think You are living in car, neither does you family... at least I hope so... And besides, a stereo can be replaced, a human can't be replaced...

"The general prohibition on stealing is infinitely more important than a single thief's life. Without property rights human suffering would be immense as can be seen from countries that deny them. Besides, if someone is on your property stealing then you must assume that you are in personal danger. Such a person may well be armed and is a potential danger to you and your family, your priority should be defending your property without exposing yourself and family to any more danger than is necessary. I'm not saying you should always shoot them, just if you are endangered."
Could not disagree more! Tribes that have no rights of Possession other than if your using it then it’s yours have no words for theft. So a society with no property rights is fine, what you mean is a society the size of yours and with the culture of yours cannot survive. This all revolves around ownership.

ok heres a deal

since you all want automatic weapons to feel safe and stupid and to collect them fine, all ammo for thise guns is outlawed except for military and police use. since just having the gun is somehow a deterrent to criminals you dont need amo do you, and if you are colelcting it there is no reason to go fire it at something, that would just involve alot of cleaning it back up and making it a nice collectors piece

Any of those 20 or 30 include quotes after the invention of semi-full auto weapons with a large detachable magazine? How about after the invention of tanks and APCs, and ground attack aircraft?

And for about the 99th time I ask - IF THE TRUE REASON FOR GUN OWNERSHIP IS DEFENCE OF ONESELF FROM FOREIGN INVADERS OR A CORRUPT INTERNAL GOVERNMENT, WHY THEN CAN'T PRIVATE CITIZENS OWN AT LAUNCHERS AND SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES? (All caps because no-one seemed to notice the other 98 times I asked). Do you really think, if a dictatorship somehow rose in America, they would not employ MBTs, APCs, attack choppers and ground attack aircaft? Do you think Joe Schmoe waving an Armalite at the sky will frighten off an AH-64? You (not saying you personally, but many here) are hiding behind an outdated notion of national defence to justify getting a buzz from owning and firing the "biggest-baddest" guns...


FACT: Ground attack aircraft can be, and have been taken down by small arms fire.

FACT: APC armour can be, and has been pierced by small arms fire

FACT: The drivers of those vehicles can't live in them you know. The plot of your AH-64 will one day land, get out, and take a piss in the bushes.

FACT: I support private civilian ownership of any conventional weapons.

FACT: There are people today in America who legally own 155mm howitzers.

FACT: Ground attack aircraft can be, and have been taken down by small arms fire.

FACT: APC armour can be, and has been pierced by small arms fire

FACT: The drivers of those vehicles can't live in them you know. The plot of your AH-64 will one day land, get out, and take a piss in the bushes.

FACT: I support private civilian ownership of any conventional weapons.

FACT: There are people today in America who legally own 155mm howitzers.
and this all matters when your home is getting opened up on by an apache after your city was carpet bombed for a week with barely legal cluster bombs

then they parade the tanks and humvees through and any resistance gets a bullet

it is pure ignorance to pretend an untrained population armed with AK-47s and M4s and shotguns will stop the most advanced military there is

and this all matters when your home is getting opened up on by an apache after your city was carpet bombed for a week with barely legal cluster bombs

Yeah, when the Apache's pilot doesn't have a base to refuel at because resistance snipers finished off all the ground crew, it does?

it is pure ignorance to pretend an untrained population armed with AK-47s and M4s and shotguns will stop the most advanced military there is

Lessee...

Chechnya has less of a population than Russia has military. That's right, there's 2 Russian soldier per every Chechenyan civilian, children and ill included. The Chechenyans are still kicking Russian a$$.

America lost Vietnam.

Israel lost Lebanon.

The British lost the war of Independence. (1775)

Heck, the British lost their war on Lesotho.

http://www.mikecaswell.com/awcountdown.gif

Canada became independant in stages via negotiations with Britain and Britain's general relaxation of of exerted control over what was formerly its "Commonwealth". We never had to use force to attain our independance. And we've enjoyed good relations with Britain to this day.


Good history lesson. Thanks!


I know I keep comparing Canada to the US, but it's not to say we're better, it's just to show that some of the ideas that people say wouldn't work do have some precedent and aren't totally pie-in-the-sky ideas. :P


That's how I was taking it. :) I've seen it work. It's just at the cost of liberty. Something I'm not willing to give up. It's not right or wrong, just different.


If by "not as compressed" as you are you mean that we have a lower population and a larger country, then you're right. However, something like 90% of our population is within 100 km of the border we share with you, so we are compressed enough to get the sort of conditions that lead to the aforementioned clashes.


What IS the population of Canada these days?


Always is a long time, and who can say how you'll feel after a while? I could very well change my stance given certain circumstances and lines of thought. You probably could too. But I understand that this is how you feel, and this is how you've felt for some time now. I hope I haven't come across as saying your feelings are wrong, even though I don't agree with them. I don't feel things have to be an "either or" type of situation. ;)


Nah, you haven't. Some are just more sensetive than others. :D


Wow. At the risk of sounding somewhat snide, I find this statement kind of suprising. :P While I know your media is fairly biased towards the current administration (on their knees unzipping the administration's fly, in fact), I have to admit that I'd forgotten that there are some Americans who don't see the world as their fiefdom, with all roads leading to Rome (Washinton). lol
"Peacekeeping not policing!" ;)


Hmm. I'm not so sure Bush is being catered to. He's taking a royal beating from the media I've seen. But yes, we're not supposed to be involde in "Foreign Entanglements". We're just supposed to be trading with everyone and being neutral in all other situations. But ever since the civil war, there are some that feel it's their duty to do what's "best" for the common good, even if it monkeys with cultural differences and other factors. Some don't think too well....


Also a good general philosophy. You know, for a right-wing gun-toting redneck, you're alright. :cool:


Heh, I'm not right-wing. I'm a Libertarian. Main tennet: If you're not hurting anyone else or their property, they have no say in what you do, nor you in what they do.

Here's where I'm at--it doesn't fit the left-right line concept: I'm WAY pro-gun (in case anyone didn't notice), I'm against taxes, I want a very small government, I don't believe in welfare (unemployment insurance is another matter, you're already paying for that directly), I am pro-choice, I want religion out of the government (though I want government out of religion as well), I'm against having any laws dealing with marriage (it's a religious concept after all), so if any homosexuals want to get married, it's between them and their god (not my business--nor anyone else's!), and I want drugs to be legal.

There should be as few laws as possible, but if they are transgressed, there should be some VERY stiff penalties, and not too many ways to get out of them.


Since we're neighbours, I'm also looking out for myself. When you have "problems" (emphasis mine), they can easily spill over to us. They do now, in fact. So while I do what happens to you, there's also some self-interest there. I'm not a TOTAL altruist. ;)


Makes sense. However, you still don't have the right to tell us what to do BEFORE anything happens. If we're stupid enough to let our problems fall into your laps, by all means speak up.


When the Cold War was in full swing, the US and the USSR made a point of letting the others know their capabilities, nuclear-wise. True, they didn't allow the overflights for confirmation, but nonetheless both sides made it very clear about what they were packing.


I'm not so sure about that. The USSR inflated their numbers, we've since found out. I don't know if the US did or not (it'd seem kind of silly to tell a potential adversary eveything you could do, so it's highly likely that the US didn't give out accurate counts either).


And I'm glad they did. If they didn't, one side might have acted based on poor understanding and a catastrophe could have enveloped us all. Sometimes obscurity isn't the best way.

Security by obfuscation only works for those that don't know the system. As an I/T security analyst, that's something I deal with on a daily basis.

and this all matters when your home is getting opened up on by an apache after your city was carpet bombed for a week with barely legal cluster bombs

then they parade the tanks and humvees through and any resistance gets a bullet

it is pure ignorance to pretend an untrained population armed with AK-47s and M4s and shotguns will stop the most advanced military there is

Yep, you're completey right! EVERY Iraqi citizen and EVERY palestinian citizen should get an armed main battle tank for self defense because currently they are the only people I can think of who are living in a scenario like the one you just described.

Oh, yeah. I forgot the people in Chechnya...

But for now, are you satisfied for the reason(s) that so many people get shot with guns in the US?

Because if you're not, then what are you going to do to shift things in the direction that you want? Other than just throwing your hands in the air and retreating to that castle of yours? You hermit. ;)

I know this wasn't directed toward me, but I'm chiming in anyway. :)

Do I like the idea of people being shot? No. I've seen enough "after" photos to know that I don't ever want to see it when it happens. Yeah, yeah, shut eyes when pulling trigger....thought I'd get it out of the way before a snide comment from someone other than you popped up.

However, more things kill more of the US population than guns. We need to put more effort to the instances that kill more of us and concentrate on how to fix those things first.

ok heres a deal

since you all want automatic weapons to feel safe and stupid and to collect them fine, all ammo for thise guns is outlawed except for military and police use. since just having the gun is somehow a deterrent to criminals you dont need amo do you, and if you are colelcting it there is no reason to go fire it at something, that would just involve alot of cleaning it back up and making it a nice collectors piece

And we'd accept any sort of deal from someone that calls us stupid, why? Oh that's right...we're supposedly stupid.

And for about the 99th time I ask - IF THE TRUE REASON FOR GUN OWNERSHIP IS DEFENCE OF ONESELF FROM FOREIGN INVADERS OR A CORRUPT INTERNAL GOVERNMENT, WHY THEN CAN'T PRIVATE CITIZENS OWN AT LAUNCHERS AND SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES? (All caps because no-one seemed to notice the other 98 times I asked). Do you really think, if a dictatorship somehow rose in America, they would not employ MBTs, APCs, attack choppers and ground attack aircaft? Do you think Joe Schmoe waving an Armalite at the sky will frighten off an AH-64? You (not saying you personally, but many here) are hiding behind an outdated notion of national defence to justify getting a buzz from owning and firing the "biggest-baddest" guns...

Fine. Why isn't it allowed today? Because we let the government take them away from us. We were always supposed to maintain a relative balance with the government, so it wouldn't be so easy for them to walk all over us.

It's our own fault for allowing the gap between what we have and what the government has.

I know this wasn't directed toward me, but I'm chiming in anyway. :)

Do I like the idea of people being shot? No. I've seen enough "after" photos to know that I don't ever want to see it when it happens. Yeah, yeah, shut eyes when pulling trigger....thought I'd get it out of the way before a snide comment from someone other than you popped up.

However, more things kill more of the US population than guns. We need to put more effort to the instances that kill more of us and concentrate on how to fix those things first.
so you advocate ignoring one problem so that we can work on other problem, it is fare more intelligent AND efficient to fix problems as we come to them and can fix them, not doewn the road and fix the biggest problems first

Guns dont kill people, a twisted mind does. In the USA media shows a really twisted picture off the world where people kills eachother all the time. When the citizens see this they get frightend that someone will go in to there house and kill them, they buy a gun and.... Well a afraid person with a gun is`nt a good idea. It is´nt the gun it self that is the problem. The media is the one to blame for the high numbers off gunkilling in the USA. In my country, Sweden we have a very low rate of killings because media does`nt frightend us all the time with new about people killing other people. But I really dont know if its right to ban guns or not. Your (the american) constitution gives every man the right to own a gun but do you really need them? I dont think that you should ban guns because some people see the guns as a social tool in hunting and gunclubs. So im really not sure if its the right thing to ban guns

Guns dont kill people, a twisted mind does. In the USA media shows a really twisted picture off the world where people kills eachother all the time. When the citizens see this they get frightend that someone will go in to there house and kill them, they buy a gun and.... Well a afraid person with a gun is`nt a good idea. It is´nt the gun it self that is the problem. The media is the one to blame for the high numbers off gunkilling in the USA. In my country, Sweden we have a very low rate of killings because media does`nt frightend us all the time with new about people killing other people. So I say. DONT BAN GUNS! :mp5:

If it bleeds it leads.

If you were to judge the USA by the media, all you think of us is that we have nonstop school shootings and high speed chases.

If it bleeds it leads.

If you were to judge the USA by the media, all you think of us is that we have nonstop school shootings and high speed chases.

Yes exactly!!! Many of my friends think that USA is a land where everybody is selling drugs or that a 3year old can get a gun very easy and that there are shooting everytime but is it?

Yes exactly!!! Many of my friends think that USA is a land where everybody is selling drugs or that a 3year old can get a gun very easy and that there are shooting everytime but is it?

No.

School/rampage shootings are very very rare.

drug use is slowly going down amongst teenagers.

in a country the size of the USA, with as many cars, it isnt too hard to find a high speed chase at least once a week somewhere in the country.

while we have more gun crime and murders than most if not all developed countries, we have less overall crime than most European countries.

There some places like Washington DC, and Detroit Michigan where crime is rampant, but places like NYC are extremely safe.

:sniper: :sniper: :mp5: no they dont. Becouse they are stupid! i L guns :fluffle: :D :gundge: when you run a republic that alows drugs, you can`t resist alowing gun`s to :p (PS:love drugs)undefinedundefinedundefinedDoes the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

FACT: Ground attack aircraft can be, and have been taken down by small arms fire.

If true, then it's the exception not the rule.

FACT: APC armour can be, and has been pierced by small arms fire

Got an example to cite?

FACT: The drivers of those vehicles can't live in them you know. The plot of your AH-64 will one day land, get out, and take a piss in the bushes.

You're right, but this isn't the world of Mad Max people are talking about. The pilot would return to base, or his carrier to take a piss.

FACT: I support private civilian ownership of any conventional weapons.

lol FACT: You put five words in bold in your post.

FACT: There are people today in America who legally own 155mm howitzers.

Working ones? Not ones filled with cement or with holes bored through them? And ammunition is legally available for them or not illegal to own?

so you advocate ignoring one problem so that we can work on other problem, it is fare more intelligent AND efficient to fix problems as we come to them and can fix them, not doewn the road and fix the biggest problems first

I'm going to take intelligence advice from someone that can't spell? Right....

It's plainly evident that you've never managed anything either.

Yeah, when the Apache's pilot doesn't have a base to refuel at because resistance snipers finished off all the ground crew, it does?

You crack me up.

Chechnya has less of a population than Russia has military. That's right, there's 2 Russian soldier per every Chechenyan civilian, children and ill included. The Chechenyans are still kicking Russian a$$.

And the Chechnyan's quality of life is much lower than that of the Russians. And while the Russians lose soldiers (except for the occasional terrorist-type attack), the Chechnyan's lose soldiers, civilians, and children. Line of supply are cut, resources are prevented from being taken or else they're redirected away. If one of the two sides to that conflict smells like ass, it ain't Russia.

America lost Vietnam.

Yeah, that tends to happen to happen when you're fighting far away from home in unfamiliar terrain against people that outnumber you many times over who are fighting for their homeland.

Israel lost Lebanon.

Interesting way to look at it. Another is that Lebanon was already there when Israel was partially formed from it. Last I checked, Israel never Lebanon.

The British lost the war of Independence. (1775)

Let's see, you have an empire that at the time spanned a quarter of the globe. You have troops dispatched all over that. One far-flung colony breaks away, but you don't have radio, airplanes, or anything faster or cheaper to move by except sailing ships. Hmmmmm. How then to strip troops from all over your empire (which of course would lose you the rest of those places) and get them to strategic points in a hurry?

I don't know why you don't just list ever single conflict, battle, and war ever fought since two proto-humans fought over the last bear rib, since every side is going to have someone you can say lost.

Guns dont kill people, a twisted mind does. In the USA media shows a really twisted picture off the world where people kills eachother all the time. When the citizens see this they get frightend that someone will go in to there house and kill them, they buy a gun and.... Well a afraid person with a gun is`nt a good idea. It is´nt the gun it self that is the problem. The media is the one to blame for the high numbers off gunkilling in the USA. In my country, Sweden we have a very low rate of killings because media does`nt frightend us all the time with new about people killing other people. But I really dont know if its right to ban guns or not. Your (the american) constitution gives every man the right to own a gun but do you really need them? I dont think that you should ban guns because some people see the guns as a social tool in hunting and gunclubs. So im really not sure if its the right thing to ban guns

You're right. The media is a huge problem with this issue, due to the amount of sensationalism, misrepresentation, and error-filled reports that continually cause fear in the general populace.

And the Chechnyan's quality of life is much lower than that of the Russians. And while the Russians lose soldiers (except for the occasional terrorist-type attack), the Chechnyan's lose soldiers, civilians, and children. Line of supply are cut, resources are prevented from being taken or else they're redirected away. If one of the two sides to that conflict smells like ass, it ain't Russia.

Remember, Russians signed a peace treaty recognising independence in Checnya in 1995. They violated it in 1999, but they were forced to do it in 1995, because they knew they couldn't win.


Interesting way to look at it

You know, that little Peace for Galillee thing 1982-1998?

Not even metioning the Israel 1948 war...

What we seem to be forgetting is it does not matter what technology brings us under the second ammendment. Laws are still subject to Congress, our President, SCOTUS and most importantly the people. So if the people ultimately choose for us not to own at-4's, MK-19's (obviously we dont want anything close)and so on, then that is up to the people to decide through thier representation's (Congressional members) and resolutions that they put into place. Obviously by kicking 20 of the democrats out of office that voted to pass the AWB and by giving such a close race in 2000 for someone most of you think is unfathamable of being President. The people have chosen to retain thier rights to AW's. That is why Bush would not dare push congress to renew the AWB and that is why Congress didn't dare to bring it back up. Because the people have spoken through what happened during the last couple of congressional elctions and our latest presidential election. Also if the people were so concerned about being able to own anything more than a basic semi-auto then they would be pressing for such. The majority of 'voting' Americans are satisfied with these simple little semi's, nothing more and nothing less. What will prove this is that even if Bush loses this election with congress being ran by Republicans I dont think to many citizens are as worried about Kerry trying to pass another AWB since it was this same congress that voted to repeal the AWB in 1996. But I am fairly sure many will be voting for Bush simply to ensure a bill is not even introduced, but who knows since nobody can read peoples minds, only their actions.

Good history lesson. Thanks!

I'm always happy to pretend to be knowledgeable. ;)

That's how I was taking it. :) I've seen it work. It's just at the cost of liberty. Something I'm not willing to give up. It's not right or wrong, just different.

My liberty is just fine stopping at red lights, and going at green ones. We have all those guns ourselves, remember. We're just not the ones with the atrocious death rate by them. Hence the suggestions to help curb that.

What IS the population of Canada these days?

Oh, we're about at 33 million.

Nah, you haven't. Some are just more sensetive than others. :D

lol

Touche. :)

Hmm. I'm not so sure Bush is being catered to. He's taking a royal beating from the media I've seen. But yes, we're not supposed to be involde in "Foreign Entanglements". We're just supposed to be trading with everyone and being neutral in all other situations. But ever since the civil war, there are some that feel it's their duty to do what's "best" for the common good, even if it monkeys with cultural differences and other factors. Some don't think too well....

I don't know, from up here it certainly seems that by and large your domestic media swallow anything that comes from the administration and reports it as fact, not "The White House said.... but according to everybody else who was there the situation is actually _______" like we dirty foreigners tend to get in our news. ;)

Heh, I'm not right-wing. I'm a Libertarian. Main tennet: If you're not hurting anyone else or their property, they have no say in what you do, nor you in what they do.

I think that's a basic tenet for a lot of people, although I'd frame it a little differently: "If I want to do (a), does it affect anybody that might want to do (b)?"

Here's where I'm at--it doesn't fit the left-right line concept: I'm WAY pro-gun (in case anyone didn't notice), I'm against taxes, I want a very small government, I don't believe in welfare (unemployment insurance is another matter, you're already paying for that directly), I am pro-choice, I want religion out of the government (though I want government out of religion as well), I'm against having any laws dealing with marriage (it's a religious concept after all), so if any homosexuals want to get married, it's between them and their god (not my business--nor anyone else's!), and I want drugs to be legal.

Well, if we're sharing all of that... I'm fine with people having guns if they're not killing each other with them. I'm not against taxes because I get roads, medical care, and a huge apparatus that's there to serve me out of the deal. Yes I'd prefer if taxes were less. We pay more here than you do in the US, btw.

I support welfare, people are important to me. Even though my family never suffered for money when I was growing up, I had a stay at home mom. When my parents split up, my mom was granted custody of my brother and I, and therefore was granted the house until we grew up, then it was to be sold and split.

Of course she went and managed to find a job immediately, but she didn't have money to gas the car, money to buy groceries for us, money for any of the bills that are part of maintaining a household. What could she do until her first paycheque?

She went to welfare. She was beside herself, as she felt ashamed by it (there was a negative connotation in her mind about welfare). She explained the situation (she'd applied for jobs, but didn't actually have the one she got yet), and how worried she was about things. The cut her a cheque, a larger than average one in fact. We ate. Power and heat stayed on. We managed and in short time were back to our previous level of wealth.

She offered to pay them back when they gave her the cheque. Even years later (this was the early eighties) when she gets frustrated at people getting caught fleecing the system, she remembers what the welfare (it's called social assistance here) told her: "Don't be ridiculous, you have children to feed and yourself to take care of. We're here to be the social safety net, because anybody can fall. Whether this is the only time we ever give you money in your life, or whether we end up supporting you in perpetuity, we won't let you fall."

I'm cool with that. :)

Going back to the laundry list, I'm pro-choice too, although I don't think that abortion should be used as birth control. We have lots of cheap, easily available, fairly effective methods of birth control already. Make sure you're using them before you have sex if you don't want to actually reproduce.

I agree that religion should be out of government. The government is supposed to be elected, but nobody elects a priest or bishop or anybody like that. Your personal religious views are part of what makes you you, however. I'd expect some of that to carry over even if you work for the government.

Marriage is not a religious concept alone. Government-wise, it's a form of contract between you and another person that has to do with shared economic benefits. This should be available between any two people, of legal age to enter a contract. You and your best friend, you and your mother, whatever.

As for the religious ceremony of being married, churches can set their own rules.

Drugs being legal (and regulated!) makes sense to me.

There should be as few laws as possible, but if they are transgressed, there should be some VERY stiff penalties, and not too many ways to get out of them.

I don't know if stiff penalties are a deterant. I'd think that the likelihood of being caught would be more important.

Makes sense. However, you still don't have the right to tell us what to do BEFORE anything happens. If we're stupid enough to let our problems fall into your laps, by all means speak up.

Okay, the gun murders that we do have here are almost without exception commited with guns that aren't available here. Guess where they're coming from? :P

I'm not so sure about that. The USSR inflated their numbers, we've since found out. I don't know if the US did or not (it'd seem kind of silly to tell a potential adversary eveything you could do, so it's highly likely that the US didn't give out accurate counts either).

True, but the idea was that the other side sees an unstoppable (no missile defense then, or now) wave of potential destruction, and an opposing force that's commited to using it if provoked. If the USSR had hidden that it had any such force, the US might very well have attacked to "stop communism" or whatever the feeling was during that time. That would have been very bad.

Security by obfuscation only works for those that don't know the system. As an I/T security analyst, that's something I deal with on a daily basis.

I agree. I was the one saying don't carry concealed, carry openly if you're going to carry. :)

WE DONT HAVE TIGHT GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE YOU KIDDING? RIGHT NOW IN OUR COUNTRY ITS EASIER TO BUY A GUN THAN A CAR THAT MUST BE STOPPED! Like the average citizen really needs to have guns, please, thats pothetic.

Sorry Homedog, I should have said in MY country we have tight gun control laws. I'm not an American, your gun control laws are liberal to say the least. I think if you re read the post you might see we agree on a few things.

I know this wasn't directed toward me, but I'm chiming in anyway. :)

That's how I got started in this thread too. :)

Do I like the idea of people being shot? No. I've seen enough "after" photos to know that I don't ever want to see it when it happens. Yeah, yeah, shut eyes when pulling trigger....thought I'd get it out of the way before a snide comment from someone other than you popped up.

Whoo hoo! Does that mean you'd accept a snide comment from me? :D

However, more things kill more of the US population than guns. We need to put more effort to the instances that kill more of us and concentrate on how to fix those things first.

Or else put a little effort into the things that seem to be easier to manage. Nobody's suggesting banning guns completely. Well, nobody you ought to listen to. ;)

A less lax (and yes it lax compared to many other countries that enjoy a lower violent crimes rate) set of gun laws and regulations might be the stop-gap measure necessary to give your country some breathing space in which they can see if they really need to be so willing to pull the trigger (as evidenced in your gun death rate).

If true, then it's the exception not the rule.

Fact:The US Dept of State uses a fleet of OV-10D ground attack aircraft modified to spray crops in Latin America:

http://www.ov-10bronco.net/us-state-tour-oct98.cfm

Quoting from that site: As you might imagine, this is very dangerous work, as aircraft are routinely shot at by the coca farmers, and several have been lost to ground fire in recent years.

FACT: "A U.S. army Black Hawk helicopter was shot down by small arms fire "
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/02/blackhawk_030402

Just what a search brought up...



Got an example to cite?

Hell, the entire military role of .50-caliber rifles is to destroy light armour, low-flying and stationary aircraft. That's what they used them for in Iraq.



You're right, but this isn't the world of Mad Max people are talking about. The pilot would return to base, or his carrier to take a piss.

You know, I was speaking methaphorically. You cannot conquer a country by bombing it. You must move in ground troops. Your troops cannot sit in their vehicles forever. When, eventually, they expose themselves, they get attacked.


Working ones? Not ones filled with cement or with holes bored through them? And ammunition is legally available for them or not illegal to own?

Indeed. Google 'Knob Creek'.

A less lax (and yes it lax compared to many other countries that enjoy a lower violent crimes rate)

Like Switzerland?

Remember, Russians signed a peace treaty recognising independence in Checnya in 1995. They violated it in 1999, but they were forced to do it in 1995, because they knew they couldn't win.

Yeah, the Russian government isn't exactly a paragon of virtue, I'll grant that. :P

You know, that little Peace for Galillee thing 1982-1998?

Not even metioning the Israel 1948 war...

I'll still stand behind what I say - every conflict has had a loser. It goes both ways, and while some specific examples may support the idea of lax government control of a population's firearms, we're talking the current state of the US, not a country in the throes of war. That's an entirely seperate situation.

Like Switzerland?
Exceptions confirm the rule

I support welfare, people are important to me. Even though my family never suffered for money when I was growing up, I had a stay at home mom. When my parents split up, my mom was granted custody of my brother and I, and therefore was granted the house until we grew up, then it was to be sold and split.

Of course she went and managed to find a job immediately, but she didn't have money to gas the car, money to buy groceries for us, money for any of the bills that are part of maintaining a household. What could she do until her first paycheque?

She went to welfare. She was beside herself, as she felt ashamed by it (there was a negative connotation in her mind about welfare). She explained the situation (she'd applied for jobs, but didn't actually have the one she got yet), and how worried she was about things. The cut her a cheque, a larger than average one in fact. We ate. Power and heat stayed on. We managed and in short time were back to our previous level of wealth.

She offered to pay them back when they gave her the cheque. Even years later (this was the early eighties) when she gets frustrated at people getting caught fleecing the system, she remembers what the welfare (it's called social assistance here) told her: "Don't be ridiculous, you have children to feed and yourself to take care of. We're here to be the social safety net, because anybody can fall. Whether this is the only time we ever give you money in your life, or whether we end up supporting you in perpetuity, we won't let you fall."

I'm cool with that. :)


And that's fine. I'm still of the mind that it's my responsibility to save me, not to take from anyone that doesn't want to give. I have zero issues with charity. Forced charity is what I don't like.


Marriage is not a religious concept alone. Government-wise, it's a form of contract between you and another person that has to do with shared economic benefits. This should be available between any two people, of legal age to enter a contract. You and your best friend, you and your mother, whatever.


You can call it whatever you want. I have no issues with legal contracts between individuals. Using the religious term marriage causes confusion, that's all I'm really trying to say, but failed the first time.


Okay, the gun murders that we do have here are almost without exception commited with guns that aren't available here. Guess where they're coming from? :P


Ah. So your border defense/patrol is our issue? Just because they're being made or imported into the US, doesn't make it the US' fault for them being in Canada. That's like blaming Canada for letting some of the 9/11 terrorists into your country before they went over the border into ours. That doesn't make sense to me.
[/QUOTE]


I agree. I was the one saying don't carry concealed, carry openly if you're going to carry. :)

I wouldn't conceal carry to protect the gun. I'd conceal carry to protect me. There's a difference in tactics there. Also a different context. :)

I like the concept, but with the reality that the majority of the gun death rates are attributed to illicit events on both sides of the bullet (IE you have criminals shooting criminals), just putting in more or stricter gun laws won't have much of an effect on the stat.
Criminals are no people?

Whoo hoo! Does that mean you'd accept a snide comment from me? :D


That doesn't really seem to be your style, Wild.


Or else put a little effort into the things that seem to be easier to manage. Nobody's suggesting banning guns completely. Well, nobody you ought to listen to. ;)


Probably the reason I keep talking with you... :D


A less lax (and yes it lax compared to many other countries that enjoy a lower violent crimes rate) set of gun laws and regulations might be the stop-gap measure necessary to give your country some breathing space in which they can see if they really need to be so willing to pull the trigger (as evidenced in your gun death rate).

I like the concept, but with the reality that the majority of the gun death rates are attributed to illicit events on both sides of the bullet (IE you have criminals shooting criminals), just putting in more or stricter gun laws won't have much of an effect on the stat.

Well I'm really happy that I don't live in a country where anybody who doens't have a criminal record can purchase a semi-automatic military weapon.

If I want though I could purchase a normal hunting rifle. But for me to do that I first have to go through two courses where I first learn how to handle the weapon and secondly learn to hunt with the weapon (which would be about the only thing I would be allowed to use it for). And also the weapon would only be allowed to be a hunting rifle since citizens aren't allowed to own handguns. And lastly if I started hunting I would probably try to learn how to hunt with a bow, since I like to to stuff that is hard and I think its way cooler to be able to kill a Elk with a bow than a rifle that allowes you to kill it from 400 meters.

Criminals are no people?

No, they're people. I just have less concern for them. I do not measure all life on the same scale. One of those cultural differences, I guess.

Well I'm really happy that I don't live in a country where anybody who doens't have a criminal record can purchase a semi-automatic military weapon.


That's a good thing. It's best to try to be happy.


If I want though I could purchase a normal hunting rifle. But for me to do that I first have to go through two courses where I first learn how to handle the weapon and secondly learn to hunt with the weapon (which would be about the only thing I would be allowed to use it for). And also the weapon would only be allowed to be a hunting rifle since citizens aren't allowed to own handguns. And lastly if I started hunting I would probably try to learn how to hunt with a bow, since I like to to stuff that is hard and I think its way cooler to be able to kill a Elk with a bow than a rifle that allowes you to kill it from 400 meters.

Now it's my turn to be glad I don't live where you do. I like my rights.

Now it's my turn to be glad I don't live where you do. I like my rights.

I also enjoy my rights of being able to get free medical attention without having to pay for it, my rights of being able to go to any school I want without having to pay for it and also my rights to be able to vote for seven parties and not two who are about the same. Im also very happy that I normally don't have to worry about anyone else than policemen or the military got any guns, I pay taxes for the police to protect me and they do it, they are paid to know when a situation is dangerous and when they actually need to use their guns so I happily leave that part to them and won't try to interfere with their work by shooting wildly around me when I feel threatend.

I also enjoy my rights of being able to get free medical attention without having to pay for it, my rights of being able to go to any school I want without having to pay for it and also my rights to be able to vote for seven parties and not two who are about the same. Im also very happy that I normally don't have to worry about anyone else than policemen or the military got any guns, I pay taxes for the police to protect me and they do it, they are paid to know when a situation is dangerous and when they actually need to use their guns so I happily leave that part to them and won't try to interfere with their work by shooting wildly around me when I feel threatend.

Those aren't rights. Those are priviledges granted to you by your government. Big difference. There is no right to force someone to pay for your education. There is no right to force someone to pay for your medical care. Rights aren't about force. Government control, on the other hand, is completely about force.

Your interpretation of the average citizen gun owner needs to be updated, though. Many of us shoot better than the police do. We tend to get more practice, as we actually like shooting.

Fact:The US Dept of State uses a fleet of OV-10D ground attack aircraft modified to spray crops in Latin America:

http://www.ov-10bronco.net/us-state-tour-oct98.cfm

Quoting from that site: As you might imagine, this is very dangerous work, as aircraft are routinely shot at by the coca farmers, and several have been lost to ground fire in recent years.

FACT: "A U.S. army Black Hawk helicopter was shot down by small arms fire "
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/02/blackhawk_030402

Just what a search brought up...

Compared to all of the comparable aircraft that have ever been shot at by small arms.

I'll stay with my original "it's the exception not the rule" statement.

I'd further add that IF you are very proficient with the weapon you're using and IF you have a fair bit of knowledge of the armored thing you're trying to take down, then you've maybe got a chance beyond dumb luck. You're not telling me the farmers are doing called shots into these aircraft. "Hey, Jefe! I'm going to put a hole in the center of the "A" where it says "USA" on the wing!" :P

Hell, the entire military role of .50-caliber rifles is to destroy light armour, low-flying and stationary aircraft. That's what they used them for in Iraq.

Sure, .50 cal anti tank rifles abound. That's not what "small arms fire" conjures up in my mind. Maybe because for the past thousand posts or so we've been talking primarily about handguns and hunting rifles. And I'm coming at it as an outsider to begin with. My bad.

You know, I was speaking methaphorically. You cannot conquer a country by bombing it. You must move in ground troops. Your troops cannot sit in their vehicles forever. When, eventually, they expose themselves, they get attacked.

I'm glad you were talking metaphorically, since it didn't seem to click pragmatically. :)

And you're right, with the caveat that you can kill everybody in a country by bombing it. Then you can move in on the ground unopposed. Let's hope nobody adopts that as a strategy.

Indeed. Google 'Knob Creek'.[/quote]

Creepy. :P

Like Switzerland?

Like Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, England and most of what used to be called first-world countries.

Well if many of you shoot better than the police I'm very happy I don't live in Usa.

And I don't care if the Average or 99.9 % of the gun owners are completly sane and normal. If only someone who might have a depression or any personal crisis gets a gun, I think citizens shouldn't have guns, except hunting rifles.

Well if many of you shoot better than the police I'm very happy I don't live in Usa. And I don't care if the Average or 99.9 % of the gun owners are completly sane and normal. If only someone who might have a depression or any personal crisis gets a gun, I think citizens shouldn't have guns, except hunting rifles.

That is why this is called crossing over from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. It only takes a second and any action to cause that. That is why here in the states they do not let the criminals exploit a citizens right. It is still held to be a criminal problem not a citizen problem.

I think that is why Most americans are also happy you dont live in the USA :)

And that's fine. I'm still of the mind that it's my responsibility to save me, not to take from anyone that doesn't want to give. I have zero issues with charity. Forced charity is what I don't like.

As you wish. I'm an individual AND a member of a community. The community part implies certain responsibilities to other members of the community. At least to me it does.

You can call it whatever you want. I have no issues with legal contracts between individuals. Using the religious term marriage causes confusion, that's all I'm really trying to say, but failed the first time.

Ah, I'm with you. You're all for unrestricted... civil unions? Not man + goat and such, but between people who can enter into contracts. I think we're on the same page here.

Ah. So your border defense/patrol is our issue? Just because they're being made or imported into the US, doesn't make it the US' fault for them being in Canada. That's like blaming Canada for letting some of the 9/11 terrorists into your country before they went over the border into ours. That doesn't make sense to me.

There's a difference. The guns are already illegal here. The method in which they're obtained in your country is illegal there. They're transported across our common border in an illegal manner. If we caught people on our side moving something illegal across the border towards YOU, we'd apprehend them. You have a border patrol too you know, that's letting these things through. :P

And the difference between the guns and the WTC terrorists is this: if they hadn't broken any laws in the manner in which they came to Canada, and if they didn't break any of our laws while they were here, then despite their subsequent actions, we'd have had no reason to even look twice at them while they were within our jurisdiction.

I wouldn't conceal carry to protect the gun. I'd conceal carry to protect me. There's a difference in tactics there. Also a different context. :)

Yes, I remember you talking about tactics before. It presupposes that the people around you are enemies, whereas I don't grant them that status until they've indicated to me that they are my enemies.

Please, won't you join my hippie love-fest? :P

That doesn't really seem to be your style, Wild.

Bah, I hate it when I get predictable. :P

Probably the reason I keep talking with you... :D

Yeah, as gun nuts go, you're not too bad yourself. ;)

I like the concept, but with the reality that the majority of the gun death rates are attributed to illicit events on both sides of the bullet (IE you have criminals shooting criminals), just putting in more or stricter gun laws won't have much of an effect on the stat.

Hmmmm, so if you remove the criminals shooting criminals, the remaining murder-by-gun rates (that includes criminal on non-criminal) don't still bother you? At least enough that possibly a different method to view how the weapons and ammunition move around in your country?

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

UN states that I have the right to free healthcare, not a privaledge granted by my goverment its something that I have the right to demand.

Article 26.
(1)Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Seems like I also have the right to education.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Now I can't be safe if everyone else got weapons, if I follow the solution adopted by you and get a weapon to defend myself from everyone else then everyone else can't be safe.

And even if most of you can aim and shoot better than the police, some can't. And I really wouldn't like to be the one standing close by when they see someone behaving strangly beside their house and they get their semi-automatic shoot gun from their car and start defending their property.

Also you can check up on those rights at www.un.org if you don't believe me.

Well if many of you shoot better than the police I'm very happy I don't live in Usa.

And I don't care if the Average or 99.9 % of the gun owners are completly sane and normal. If only someone who might have a depression or any personal crisis gets a gun, I think citizens shouldn't have guns, except hunting rifles.

Even though I've pretty much been in the opposite camp of the "pro-gun" side, I've got to say that there are lots of people in my country with guns. And we do okay.

However, we seem to have less of a willingness to use them on people. That goes a long way to keeping our gun incident rates way down.

So I'm not anti gun. I'm pro people.

That is why this is called crossing over from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. It only takes a second and any action to cause that. That is why here in the states they do not let the criminals exploit a citizens right. It is still held to be a criminal problem not a citizen problem.

I think that is why Most americans are also happy you dont live in the USA :)


To me, the right to carry arms isn't as imortant as the right to free healthcare for example. In fact, I don't think the right to carry arms should be a right becouse it's to dangerous. And I guess it makes us have a little less personal freedom than you in that issue.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
UN states that I have the right to free healthcare, not a privaledge granted by my goverment its something that I have the right to demand.
Article 26.
(1)Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Seems like I also have the right to education.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Now I can't be safe if everyone else got weapons, if I follow the solution adopted by you and get a weapon to defend myself from everyone else then everyone else can't be safe.
And even if most of you can aim and shoot better than the police, some can't. And I really wouldn't like to be the one standing close by when they see someone behaving strangly beside their house and they get their semi-automatic shoot gun from their car and start defending their property.

Can you provide proof that a legal gun owner and law abiding citizen, (everyone single one of them that owns firearms) is dangerous to your health? No it is the ones that break the law with guns that endanger peoples health. You got any studies that prove otherwise?

Also just to let you know, in the US they don't go by UN doctrine. We go by our Constitution and Federalist papers. :p

Ah, I'm with you. You're all for unrestricted... civil unions? Not man + goat and such, but between people who can enter into contracts. I think we're on the same page here.


Pretty much. :)


There's a difference. The guns are already illegal here. The method in which they're obtained in your country is illegal there. They're transported across our common border in an illegal manner. If we caught people on our side moving something illegal across the border towards YOU, we'd apprehend them. You have a border patrol too you know, that's letting these things through. :P

And the difference between the guns and the WTC terrorists is this: if they hadn't broken any laws in the manner in which they came to Canada, and if they didn't break any of our laws while they were here, then despite their subsequent actions, we'd have had no reason to even look twice at them while they were within our jurisdiction.


Good points. My analogy was faulty. Sorry. I WISH we had a bit more border funding at this point. One of the things our military could actually do, if they weren't out in the world, messing with stuff we have no business messing with.


Yes, I remember you talking about tactics before. It presupposes that the people around you are enemies, whereas I don't grant them that status until they've indicated to me that they are my enemies.


Not classifying them as enemies. As potential enemies. It's just an awareness thing. Unless I stop sleeping and gain 360 degree vision, I want to hide the gun, so if there is trouble, I'd be underestimated.


Please, won't you join my hippie love-fest? :P

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Can't we just have a beer instead? :D

<a bunch of exerpts from the UN charter snipped for brevity>

Also you can check up on those rights at www.un.org if you don't believe me.

One thing you're going to have to remember here:

At the risk of sounding unintentionally snide, the citizens of the US (in my experience) are not willing to have an outside agency (even one they're a part of) being the one telling them what they can or cannot do. Note the can part.

I think you'll find that while many of them will agree that these things sound good, they'll go on to say that they'll decide for themselves to have them or not at a time and in a manner of their own choosing.

That's not an attack against the people of the US, so all of you getting ready to hit the quote button with vitriol on your mind can just cut it out. :P If you'd like to tell me I'm mistaken, that's fine. :)

ye wudnt be such an insecure country if ye get rid of yur guns

To me, the right to carry arms isn't as imortant as the right to free healthcare for example. In fact, I don't think the right to carry arms should be a right becouse it's to dangerous. And I guess it makes us have a little less personal freedom than you in that issue.

There is no such right as free healthcare. Again, it's a priviledge your government meets out to you.

Good points. My analogy was faulty. Sorry. I WISH we had a bit more border funding at this point. One of the things our military could actually do, if they weren't out in the world, messing with stuff we have no business messing with.

That's okay, I know how you gun nuts think with your pistols. ;)

But yes, I think you'd find that tension the world over would relax noticeably if you'd pull the bulk of your forces home. And think of the money you'd save!

Not classifying them as enemies. As potential enemies. It's just an awareness thing. Unless I stop sleeping and gain 360 degree vision, I want to hide the gun, so if there is trouble, I'd be underestimated.

A different world outlook than me, my man. I bet I need a massage less than you. lol

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Can't we just have a beer instead? :D

I don't drink, but sure. American beer sucks. ;)

To me, the right to carry arms isn't as imortant as the right to free healthcare for example. In fact, I don't think the right to carry arms should be a right becouse it's to dangerous. And I guess it makes us have a little less personal freedom than you in that issue.

Ok well when you locate in our Constitution anything that doesn't say the right to bear arms isn't as important to you or anyone else having healthcare, let me know. Then I guess you can run and get your healthcare, until then American's have the right to run and get thier guns. Also who cares if someone thinks a right shouldnt be a right, You still need 2/3 and then 3/4 of states to ratify it. Prove that armed law abiding americans give you less personal freedoms. Please do. Also you have no stinking rights besides the ones that are in our Constitution of which are backed by our federalist papers. You are however allowed to dream of having those rights. Go for it and enjoy!

There is no such right as free healthcare. Again, it's a priviledge your government meets out to you.

Free healthcare sounds like a much better way to achieve "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" than arming the populace.

Sorry, couldn't resist. <slaps wrist> Bad Canadian!

Bah, I hate it when I get predictable. :P



Yeah, as gun nuts go, you're not too bad yourself. ;)



Hmmmm, so if you remove the criminals shooting criminals, the remaining murder-by-gun rates (that includes criminal on non-criminal) don't still bother you? At least enough that possibly a different method to view how the weapons and ammunition move around in your country?

People being shot does bother me, but privacy and freedom are paramount to me. I'm not willing to give up either for what may or may not change the situation for the better.

I may have a democrat senator, but dammit, he did right by me as being the one dissenting vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act.

I will manage my own safety and security. I expect others to take care of themselves as well. Community only extends so far--roughly my own neighborhood. I'd probably help them out when I could. But extending that to everyone--not likely. Too much energy, too much money, and not my choice.

One thing you're going to have to remember here:
At the risk of sounding unintentionally snide, the citizens of the US (in my experience) are not willing to have an outside agency (even one they're a part of) being the one telling them what they can or cannot do. Note the can part.I think you'll find that while many of them will agree that these things sound good, they'll go on to say that they'll decide for themselves to have them or not at a time and in a manner of their own choosing.
That's not an attack against the people of the US, so all of you getting ready to hit the quote button with vitriol on your mind can just cut it out. :P If you'd like to tell me I'm mistaken, that's fine.

Heck I want to agree with ya man. Independance in our country= Individual liberty, States rights, Private property. 3 things the UN doesnt believe in, so it might be the *reason* the US doesn't notice much of what the UN says. We see ourselves as our own 50 countries inside our own big 1 united 50 countries. :)

People being shot does bother me, but privacy and freedom are paramount to me. I'm not willing to give up either for what may or may not change the situation for the better.

I'm just not sure that weapons are necessary (or even desireable) to achieve privacy and/or freedom.

I may have a democrat senator, but dammit, he did right by me as being the one dissenting vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act.

Ah, my friends to the south, you have no idea at how much we've wept for you over the Patriot Act. You're going to be regretting that one for generations.

I will manage my own safety and security. I expect others to take care of themselves as well. Community only extends so far--roughly my own neighborhood. I'd probably help them out when I could. But extending that to everyone--not likely. Too much energy, too much money, and not my choice.

Heh. [/tongue in cheek] Does that mean you'll fill potholes on the road outside your place on your own, while you're taking care of your own safety? :D [/tongue in cheek]

One thing you're going to have to remember here:

At the risk of sounding unintentionally snide, the citizens of the US (in my experience) are not willing to have an outside agency (even one they're a part of) being the one telling them what they can or cannot do. Note the can part.

I think you'll find that while many of them will agree that these things sound good, they'll go on to say that they'll decide for themselves to have them or not at a time and in a manner of their own choosing.

That's not an attack against the people of the US, so all of you getting ready to hit the quote button with vitriol on your mind can just cut it out. :P If you'd like to tell me I'm mistaken, that's fine. :)

Nope, you're right. We don't like being told what to or not to do much at all. :)

Free healthcare sounds like a much better way to achieve "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" than arming the populace.

Sorry, couldn't resist. <slaps wrist> Bad Canadian!

Whoo hoo! I get to roll out that one word: pursuit.

Pursuit of happiness. The Constitution never guarantees happiness.

Yeah, it's a nit-pick of a point, but hey....I didn't get to slap ya, you already did. This is my revenge.

Government funded health care may or may not be a good thing. There are stats either way. But that's a completely different topic. It's still not a right, that's all I'm bringing up.

Heck I want to agree with ya man. Independance in our country= Individual liberty, States rights, Private property. 3 things the UN doesnt believe in, so it might be the *reason* the US doesn't notice much of what the UN says. We see ourselves as our own 50 countries inside our own big 1 united 50 countries. :)

It's not that the UN doesn't agree with those things, and in fact personal liberty is at the heart of many of the things listed by the UN as paramount.

It's just that the UN doesn't have borders, it's meant to emcompass anybody, even if they don't want it. That's not a military statement, it just means that people who are doing things under its banner will extend those rights to those they deal with, even if those people don't recognise those rights for themselves.

It's an ideal, and a humancentric way of looking at things.

See how far your liberty and individuality gets you when you've been without food and water and shelter and heat for a few days. ;)

With people from varying cultures wanting to maintain (as much as possible) their way of life on this planet, you have to start with commonalities. We all breathe, drink water, eat food. Need protection from the elements. This isn't a bad place to start, in my opinion.

But you're not a dumbass Faithfull-freedom, so you know all this. We're not (well, I'M not) trying to push our way of life on to your country. We'd like it if you changed some things, both because it would benefit us (us being all the non-Americans) but also because we care about you as a people, and even as individuals.

Which is why (see how I'm tying it all back to the thread? :D) I prefer that people, even criminals, not get shot needlessly. Which is all I've ever really tried to address here. And suggesting methods and ways of looking at things to achieve that end.

And someday we're (Canada is) going to smother your country with love and flowers. Shoot us if you want to, but we've got hockey sticks and huge maple syrup stockpiles. I don't think there's any doubt who'll win that conflict. ;)

Nope, you're right. We don't like being told what to or not to do much at all. :)

Which reminds me, would you mind turning down the emissions coming from your country? You're making our weather kind of crappy. lol

Whoo hoo! I get to roll out that one word: pursuit.

Pursuit of happiness. The Constitution never guarantees happiness.

Yeah, it's a nit-pick of a point, but hey....I didn't get to slap ya, you already did. This is my revenge.

Government funded health care may or may not be a good thing. There are stats either way. But that's a completely different topic. It's still not a right, that's all I'm bringing up.

Okay, I deserved that. :P

The Constitution does mention Life long before it mentions an item (arms) that can be used to end life. <stretching>

I'm just not sure that weapons are necessary (or even desireable) to achieve privacy and/or freedom.


They're there to be able to repulse force from someone else. Heck, with the repulsed reactions from some in this thread, they don't want to be anywhere near us! :D


Ah, my friends to the south, you have no idea at how much we've wept for you over the Patriot Act. You're going to be regretting that one for generations.


Don't get me started at how pissed I was when that went through.


Heh. [/tongue in cheek] Does that mean you'll fill potholes on the road outside your place on your own, while you're taking care of your own safety? :D [/tongue in cheek]
[/QUOTE]

Even if it was meant jokingly, you do bring up a valid point. I wouldn't do it no, but I'd probaly pay someone of my choosing to do it. Probably the lowest bidder that did quality work with quality product. Privatization. Again, another discussion for another thread.

It's not that the UN doesn't agree with those things, and in fact personal liberty is at the heart of many of the things listed by the UN as paramount.

It's just that the UN doesn't have borders, it's meant to emcompass anybody, even if they don't want it. That's not a military statement, it just means that people who are doing things under its banner will extend those rights to those they deal with, even if those people don't recognise those rights for themselves.

It's an ideal, and a humancentric way of looking at things.

See how far your liberty and individuality gets you when you've been without food and water and shelter and heat for a few days. ;)

With people from varying cultures wanting to maintain (as much as possible) their way of life on this planet, you have to start with commonalities. We all breathe, drink water, eat food. Need protection from the elements. This isn't a bad place to start, in my opinion.

But you're not a dumbass Faithfull-freedom, so you know all this. We're not (well, I'M not) trying to push our way of life on to your country. We'd like it if you changed some things, both because it would benefit us (us being all the non-Americans) but also because we care about you as a people, and even as individuals.

Which is why (see how I'm tying it all back to the thread? :D) I prefer that people, even criminals, not get shot needlessly. Which is all I've ever really tried to address here. And suggesting methods and ways of looking at things to achieve that end.

And someday we're (Canada is) going to smother your country with love and flowers. Shoot us if you want to, but we've got hockey sticks and huge maple syrup stockpiles. I don't think there's any doubt who'll win that conflict. ;)


DAMN your syrup card!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

They're there to be able to repulse force from someone else. Heck, with the repulsed reactions from some in this thread, they don't want to be anywhere near us! :D

All without weapons! Finally, validation that even a gun nut can see! :D

Even if it was meant jokingly, you do bring up a valid point. I wouldn't do it no, but I'd probaly pay someone of my choosing to do it. Probably the lowest bidder that did quality work with quality product. Privatization. Again, another discussion for another thread.

True. Although some things ought not to be privatized. I wouldn't want to live in a solely capitalist country. I suspect that most people wouldn't.

DAMN your syrup card!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I was going to extend that into how sweet we are as a people, but the ratings came back and the joke wouldn't have flown. :P

Which reminds me, would you mind turning down the emissions coming from your country? You're making our weather kind of crappy. lol

Back in the "We are baring our souls" portion of one of these threads, I forgot to mention that I'm pro conservation.

I would love nothing more than to use hydrogen as a fuel supply. I recently found out that it would take large amounts of natural gas (or other petroleum-based product) to actually create the hydrogen for the fuel cells.

Argh.

C'mon science! Give us a better way, soon!

Back in the "We are baring our souls" portion of one of these threads, I forgot to mention that I'm pro conservation.

I would love nothing more than to use hydrogen as a fuel supply. I recently found out that it would take large amounts of natural gas (or other petroleum-based product) to actually create the hydrogen for the fuel cells.

Argh.

C'mon science! Give us a better way, soon!

Funny you should bring that up. We've got a large and a small hydrogen cell manufacturer in my city. We've had some buses running on them. They're quiet.

I have a soon-to-be-sister-in-law who's doing her PhD on biofilms. It looks like with the right kind of pond scum, you could efficiently pull hydrogen from water, and indeed from lots of kinds of easily-procureable biomatter.

Whether that would work on a large scale remains to be seen.

All without weapons! Finally, validation that even a gun nut can see! :D


If that's all it took to keep people from encroaching on you, that would be really cool. Unfortunately, there are some with thicker skins out there.... :( That's why you need the heavier bullets! :D


True. Although some things ought not to be privatized. I wouldn't want to live in a solely capitalist country. I suspect that most people wouldn't.

I agree. Which is why I'm for severly limited government, not the complete removal of it.

The reason things like firearms and free speech are guranteed, and healthcare is not, is because the Bill of Rights exists to protect the freedom of the population. No matter how good an idea you think it is, a right to healthcare is not going to have an impact on your liberty. Free spech does. Free worship does. Gun ownership does.

Why?

Because we have a Government that governs by the consent of the people. That's critical. Dictatorships, most Monarchies, Theocracies, etc do NOT rule by consent of the people. The rule by force. If you disarm a population, you leave them vulnerable to being unable to give or revoke their consent to be governed. That's BAD, folks. Examples include Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist USSR. In each case, one of the first steps in the takeover of the governments was to disarm the population.

Some of you might be tempted to point out that a bunch of armed but disorganized civilians are no match for the modern tactics and weapons that would be employed against them. Look at Iraq and tell me armed insurgents are ineffective. (For the record, I support our troops and their efforts, and I still believe they're doing a helluva job. It's just the reality of the situation that's making it rough on them.)

Also, in some sort of hypothetical armed civil uprising in the US, do you really think the whole army would support the oppression and side against the people?

Consent of the Governed, this is why I love the USA.

Funny you should bring that up. We've got a large and a small hydrogen cell manufacturer in my city. We've had some buses running on them. They're quiet.

I have a soon-to-be-sister-in-law who's doing her PhD on biofilms. It looks like with the right kind of pond scum, you could efficiently pull hydrogen from water, and indeed from lots of kinds of easily-procureable biomatter.

Whether that would work on a large scale remains to be seen.

Kick ass! Hopefully, something can be done with it on a large scale! <crosses fingers>

Free healthcare might not be a right in the US but it's still a human RIGHT which is valid in any country who accpets the human rights. And I just happen to live in a country that accepts human rights which makes free healthcare one of my rights. So it may not be in your constitution but as far as I know (got a headache so I wont search the whole web for verification) it's in mine.

And honsetly you can have as many weapons you wan't, if you just let the rest of us remove all your weapons of mass destruction. That would make me feel perfectly safe and would make me happy to give you the rights to own a tank and a haubitzer cannon (just for hunting and protection though).

And as for the criminals they just happen to be normal citizens with the right to buy weapons and keep them until they commit a crime. So that kinda makes me doubt in that system.

Also one last thing, you have succeded with one part of your constitution in Iraq. Everyone is armed and everyone is fighting against what they beleive is an unjust goverment.

And also go my Canadian maple suyrap loving friend, you will get them to the hippie party in the end.

See how far your liberty and individuality gets you when you've been without food and water and shelter and heat for a few days.

Thank you, Actually quite a few times on purpose even, sometimes not on purpose. I have persevered due to my countries rights in these situations. I have been able to use my individual liberties to gain food (through a firearm), water (through a pur microfilter+poncho and a few sticks), shelter (through a poncho oh and a few sticks) and stay out of the heat with that same poncho. Plus my individual liberty to strip down to whatever I felt comfortable in or lack there of.

When I go for a pack trip I bring my food with me and have it mailed to the towns I will be visiting along the way. When I am stuck with over a week without any replenishments then I am very grateful for the right I have to bear arms even if it is just for gaining food. Remember I dont hunt anymore, But I still will and have when it is my last resort to survive. This is not even the main intended use (or even close to)of our Second ammendment. Yet from this measly use of this right it has kept me alive in these situations. That is why the main intention of our second ammendment is so much more powerful and so much more important to retain. Becuase then it is not you against nature or yourselve, it is you against someone much more well armed.

When I say this I know I will die knowing it is true. We in the US will never have to use a firearm to repel our own government, I also can not read the future so what I say doesnt mean shit. That is reason enough to keep it as strong as it has ever been. :)

Free healthcare might not be a right in the US but it's still a human RIGHT which is valid in any country who accpets the human rights. And I just happen to live in a country that accepts human rights which makes free healthcare one of my rights. So it may not be in your constitution but as far as I know (got a headache so I wont search the whole web for verification) it's in mine.

And honsetly you can have as many weapons you wan't, if you just let the rest of us remove all your weapons of mass destruction. That would make me feel perfectly safe and would make me happy to give you the rights to own a tank and a haubitzer cannon (just for hunting and protection though).

And as for the criminals they just happen to be normal citizens with the right to buy weapons and keep them until they commit a crime. So that kinda makes me doubt in that system.

And also go my Canadian maple suyrap loving friend, you will get them to the hippie party in the end.


Forcing someone else to pay for your medical bills is a right? You have a weird definition of the term.

Taking anything from us (including any kind of weapon) is also not a right. We don't really need your approval to do anything, if we're not attacking anyone (don't even get me started on the bullshit happening in Iraq--we never should have been there). Just like we don't have the right to tell you not to create your own weapons of mass destruction. That decision is up to you (or in some cases, your government).

Criminals aren't criminals until they commit a crime. So yes, any adult who hasn't commited a felony in this country can buy a firearm (yes there are a few variances on things like age from state to state).

Kick ass! Hopefully, something can be done with it on a large scale! <crosses fingers>

Hopefully it can also be done in small scattered patchwork fashion, so never again can we see entire countries run by or broken by hydrogen companies, the way oil companies currently run roughshod over the world.

And also go my Canadian maple suyrap loving friend, you will get them to the hippie party in the end.

Bring along some of your Swedish meatballs - we can pelt them at the non-believers. ;)

The reason things like firearms and free speech are guranteed, and healthcare is not, is because the Bill of Rights exists to protect the freedom of the population. No matter how good an idea you think it is, a right to healthcare is not going to have an impact on your liberty. Free spech does. Free worship does. Gun ownership does.

Why?

Because we have a Government that governs by the consent of the people. That's critical. Dictatorships, most Monarchies, Theocracies, etc do NOT rule by consent of the people. The rule by force. If you disarm a population, you leave them vulnerable to being unable to give or revoke their consent to be governed. That's BAD, folks. Examples include Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist USSR. In each case, one of the first steps in the takeover of the governments was to disarm the population.

Some of you might be tempted to point out that a bunch of armed but disorganized civilians are no match for the modern tactics and weapons that would be employed against them. Look at Iraq and tell me armed insurgents are ineffective. (For the record, I support our troops and their efforts, and I still believe they're doing a helluva job. It's just the reality of the situation that's making it rough on them.)

Also, in some sort of hypothetical armed civil uprising in the US, do you really think the whole army would support the oppression and side against the people?

Consent of the Governed, this is why I love the USA.
and if you slowly sap away all rights under the ignorant noses of the gun nuts, it will be too late for the gun nuts to fight back when they realise they are boned

Thank you, Actually quite a few times on purpose even, sometimes not on purpose. I have persevered due to my countries rights in these situations. I have been able to use my individual liberties to gain food (through a firearm), water (through a pur microfilter+poncho and a few sticks), shelter (through a poncho oh and a few sticks) and stay out of the heat with that same poncho. Plus my individual liberty to strip down to whatever I felt comfortable in or lack there of.

I know you're not talking to me, since I've never been for banning firearms. Not once. I've been the one against using firearms to kill people. Since in your above example you didn't cite shooting people with your gun, can I assume that you're totally on my side? ;)

Have some whale blubber. :)

When I say this I know I will die knowing it is true. We in the US will never have to use a firearm to repel our own government, I also can not read the future so what I say doesnt mean shit. That is reason enough to keep it as strong as it has ever been. :)

If you equate strength with having a firearm, and you equate loss of strength (weakness) with not being armed, then there are some psychological issues here.

Not saying there's something wrong with you, but you're in a way different headspace than I am.

I know you're not talking to me, since I've never been for banning firearms. Not once. I've been the one against using firearms to kill people. Since in your above example you didn't cite shooting people with your gun, can I assume that you're totally on my side?

I am always on everyones side until they do me wrong. You never did me wrong, were on a forum so nobody can do me wrong here(not even chess) :)

.






If you equate strength with having a firearm, and you equate loss of strength (weakness) with not being armed, then there are some psychological issues here.

The only time I equal strength in anything is when it helps you overcome. It helped me overcome my starvation and it would help overcome an overbearing person or person's with equal or greater means to overcome you.


Not saying there's something wrong with you, but you're in a way different headspace than I am.

Thats right so stay out of my damn head! :)

I am always on everyones side until they do me wrong. You never did me wrong, were on a forum so nobody can do me wrong here(not even chess) :)

lol

Because you're armed and we're not? ;)

The only time I equal strength in anything is when it helps you overcome. It helped me overcome my starvation and it would help overcome an overbearing person or person's with equal means to overcome you.

Meh. I see them as apples and oranges. But I'm willing to make fruit cocktail. Care to compromise? :)

Thats right so stay out of my damn head! :)

Like there's room for me in that tiny thing... I mean... er... Let us HELP you! :D

Meh. I see them as apples and oranges. But I'm willing to make fruit cocktail. Care to compromise? :)
i didnt see this apples and oranges argument, maybe because it was pointed out by some one who tries to compare guns to cars

i didnt see this apples and oranges argument, maybe because it was pointed out by some one who tries to compare guns to cars

Its still beats comparing feelings to Rights :D

Meh. I see them as apples and oranges. But I'm willing to make fruit cocktail. Care to compromise?

Ok but you keep the apple and give me the oj and vodka.

Speaking of screwdrivers, if you (not you) can attempt to kill me with one of those and I still dont think of unholstering then its safe to say I wouldnt hurt anyone unarmed (and most likely armed) Unless you consider bouncing off the concrete being hurt? (again not you) :)

Hey when we getting together at collosus to watch a film? That theatre rocks up in surrey.

I may have a democrat senator, but dammit, he did right by me as being the one dissenting vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act.
.

Gotta disagree with you there. We lost our rights during the drug war. The patriot act hasnt done crap....yet

i didnt see this apples and oranges argument, maybe because it was pointed out by some one who tries to compare guns to cars

The comparison of using a gun to hunt for food as opposed to using a gun to shoot a human being. Or, to be more fair to the OP, having a gun in case they feel it becomes necessary to shoot another human being.

Ok but you keep the apple and give me the oj and vodka.

Speaking of screwdrivers, if you (not you) can attempt to kill me with one of those and I still dont think of unholstering then its safe to say I wouldnt hurt anyone unarmed (and most likely armed) Unless you consider bouncing off the concrete being hurt? (again not you) :)

Are you threatening me?! You do not want to face the wrath of my bunghole, it goes bongo bongo ruh-papapaPA!

Sorry. :P

If you're asking if I prefer nonlethal means of dealing with someone, then the answer is <deep breath> YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, that felt so good! :D

Hey when we getting together at collosus to watch a film? That theatre rocks up in surrey.

I prefer the slightly smaller but very comfortable Silver Screen franchise of theaters, but not the collosus. :P But we can compromise... if you leave your gun at home. ;)

and if you slowly sap away all rights under the ignorant noses of the gun nuts, it will be too late for the gun nuts to fight back when they realise they are boned

Spoken like a true Socialist, Chess:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
*Norman Thomas {1884-1968 } American Socialist Party Leader

Yeah, we are realizing your agenda. Thanks for letting us know that you are actually a threat to this country and liberty, as opposed to just a bumbling idiot.

Spoken like a true Socialist, Chess:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
*Norman Thomas {1884-1968 } American Socialist Party Leader

Yeah, we are realizing your agenda. Thanks for letting us know that you are actually a threat to this country and liberty, as opposed to just a bumbling idiot.

Hmmmm. Ready for another ignorant question? :)

Several pages back, I saw a flurry of people using "socialism" as though it was a dirty word.

But if you have an unemployment insurance program set up, or welfare, or national healthcare, or public schools... those are are socialist things. Why the aversion to anything that seems to have the "taint" of socialism?

I prefer the slightly smaller but very comfortable Silver Screen franchise of theaters, but not the collosus. :P But we can compromise... if you leave your gun at home.

I would be in Canada so that would be a given :)

haven't been to the silver screen unless it is one down between the wedgewood hotel and roxies... at least I think it was one down there.... I remember the street was blocked off for cars I think a trolly ran through it? been awhile lol

If you remove a persons right to have firearms, the govement can oppress as much as they want. They could stop listening to votes, and become a dictatorship. We need to have weapons to preserve our freedom. And if we defend our own property, the police can spend more time hunting terrorists. And i think if a criminal has a weapon but doesn't know if the person who he is going to commit a crime has one, what kind, or how many, i think most criminals would think again. And colimbine? well teachers would be trianed and would have a weapon with them on campus, same with commercial pilots. And i beleive that when america put a heavier restrictions on guns, crime soared. And remember only the law abiding citizens would follow the law, the criminals don't, so you ban guns, the citizens get rid of their weapons, and the criminals still have theirs, making the citizens easy prey...

and this should silence counter arguements---


http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_monopoly.jpg

The comparison of using a gun to hunt for food as opposed to using a gun to shoot a human being. Or, to be more fair to the OP, having a gun in case they feel it becomes necessary to shoot another human being.
that is not apples and oranges, maybe kiwis and strawberries

I would be in Canada so that would be a given :)

haven't been to the silver screen unless it is one down between the wedgewood hotel and roxies... at least I think it was one down there.... I remember the street was blocked off for cars I think a trolly ran through it? been awhile lol

lol

We don't have trollys (unless someone's started one up :P) but lots of our city buses will switch to electrical power when they're at a place with lines.

Silver Screen is a chain of theatres, so there are several around. :)

If you remove a persons right to have firearms, the govement can oppress as much as they want.
then by all means explain why the pro-gun people blindly support every removement of rights as long as they dont involve removing guns and the anti-gun people fight tooth and nail against these people to keep their rights intact, your argument is ignorant and asinine.

They could stop listening to votes, and become a dictatorship. We need to have weapons to preserve our freedom.
so you assert some untrained citizens could hold off the most advanced military in the world that has all intentions of oppressing you?

And if we defend our own property, the police can spend more time hunting terrorists.
you couldnt define the word

And i think if a criminal has a weapon but doesn't know if the person who he is going to commit a crime has one, what kind, or how many, i think most criminals would think again.
lie, why would the criminal care if they didnt know the person explicitly had a gun? and if they did know they would just shoot them and get it over with, think before you type, if you can

And colimbine? well teachers would be trianed and would have a weapon with them on campus, same with commercial pilots.
i dont think kids walking into schools with guns with all intentions of committing a massacre are going to wait for people to draw their guns before opening up on them.

And i beleive that when america put a heavier restrictions on guns, crime soared.
i highly, highly, highly doubt you have 1 resource to cite for that

And remember only the law abiding citizens would follow the law, the criminals don't, so you ban guns, the citizens get rid of their weapons, and the criminals still have theirs, making the citizens easy prey...
so you suggest unbanning all guns because some criminals who really try can get guns. you do realise however that if they are unbanned every petty thief will have a gun and knowing that some oen else hasa gun will be inclined to shoot first and ask questions later if need be, why do you think their are so many accidental cop shootings? the cops dont know if the perp has a gun so if they exhibit the signs they will get shot whether they have one or not.

and bravo you quote a partisan site, how about i go get a picture of some guns and soem dead people and make a picture, then i will be smrt like you!

You cannot eliminate choice. Choice was created to consume the natural ability of events. Beginning to govern choice is only the result of the status of the people and their character (The breakdown of society clause). Without choice...we become robotic and pointless. There becomes no good side and no evil side. Truth is choice...argue choice and you begin to lose your freedom...

Some will understand the statement above..others will understand the statements below.

Pointing fingers at mechanical engineering is rude. (Didn't your mother teach you that?)

"I think they were beginning to implement 'Sword Control' on William Wallace and his unruly band just before the movie ended with his last word...Freedom."

"The government is already in your back pocket...I guess they'll dig deeper to keep your unarmed neighborhood safer."

"Evil will always find a way, their choices remain unlimited and now we can stamp on less consequences. For Good, it is ever increasingly harder because Neutral is worried that we may try something unplausible such as defending ourselves."

If you remove a persons right to have firearms, the govement can oppress as much as they want. They could stop listening

I've got news for you, Chief. Do you pay taxes? Follow laws? Guess what? You're already being oppressed by your logic.

Note also that as far as I remember, only one person in the last several pages in this thread has spoken of BANNING guns. Another (from Sweden) has said that he doesn't understand why anybody needs guns, much less wants them.

I've merely said that I'd like to stop people from shooting other people. Also note that you can be oppressed regardless of the weaponry you're packing.

to votes, and become a dictatorship. We need to have weapons to preserve our freedom. And if we defend our own property, the police can spend more time hunting terrorists. And i think if a criminal has a weapon but doesn't

Funny how the rest of us that have a level of life and wealth comparable to people in the US don't find we need guns to preserve our freedom. Why do you feel it's the only way? Do you feel that if you don't have a gun, you're enslaved?

know if the person who he is going to commit a crime has one, what kind, or how many, i think most criminals would think again. And colimbine?

Wow. You're a heavily armed nation, with plenty of crime. Anybody can read the statistics of how many guns are kicking around. And yet you still have crime. It seems to me that if anything, it would encourage a criminal to get a gun, if he didn't have one before.

well teachers would be trianed and would have a weapon with them on campus, same with commercial pilots.

So you want guns around children in a school setting in a manner that doesn't involve teaching them safety or compassion? Wow.

And i beleive that when america put a heavier restrictions on guns, crime soared. And remember only the law abiding citizens would follow the law, the criminals don't, so you ban guns, the citizens get rid of their weapons, and the criminals still have theirs, making the citizens easy prey...

With this last paragraph, it seems obvious that you haven't read more than a page worth of posts. Do yourself a favour and skim a few of them. While many are repetitious, there are lots of good points in them. On all sides.

and this should silence counter arguements---
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_monopoly.jpg

You mean the picture of the guys that don't have any Nazi insignia on them?

Then let me speak as a descendant of people who lived in Germany when the Nazis came to power.

A large chunk of the population LIKED what the Nazis promised. You see, Germany which was once a prosperous country was languishing in the wake of the first world war, since it had to make reparations. The quality of life was less than before, and people worked harder for less. And people's personal sense of pride were under assault.

So when the Nazis spoke of how everybody else was the cause of Germany's woes, it sounded pretty good. It sounded even better when they spoke of ending the reparations from WW1 and using that money to Germany's betterment.

And in the years that followed, there was conscription into the army. You didn't get to choose. I had relatives in this boat. I probably had relatives that signed up, but ah well.

So you know what? Put a couple of American soldiers in a picture with a similar caption. Because while the mythology of the Nazi regime maintains a special place in the hearts of the American consciousness, to more people living in the world today an American soldier represents oppression in far more real terms than anybody who ever said "Heil Hitler!".

that is not apples and oranges, maybe kiwis and strawberries

Or possibly truffles and Pamela Anderson. But this is getting obscure. :P

then by all means explain why the pro-gun people blindly support every removement of rights as long as they dont involve removing guns and the anti-gun people fight tooth and nail against these people to keep their rights intact, your argument is ignorant and asinine.


Acutally, Chess, if you knew anything about Libertarians (who are pro gun), you'd already know that you were the one that made the ignorant comment. For someone that flings the word stupid around so much, I'm realizing that you're just projecting.

To the above quotable dole..Chess Squares..

Criminals will always get anything they can to serve any purpose they decide upon..much less the government.

I believe *cough* The British came over here...sometime before you were born yesterday..with a highly trained military, fought a load of farmers, burned their capitol, etc.
A few years later the redcoats left and left them alone and it surely was not because they fought with their bare hands.

Hmmm..yes..Australia and Great Britain..after enacting forms of Anti-Gun legislation found a 42%-65% increase in crime...nation-wide. Somebody was thanking people like you for it.

Hmmmm. Ready for another ignorant question? :)

Several pages back, I saw a flurry of people using "socialism" as though it was a dirty word.

But if you have an unemployment insurance program set up, or welfare, or national healthcare, or public schools... those are are socialist things. Why the aversion to anything that seems to have the "taint" of socialism?

For those of us who grew up with freedom of choice, socialism is a bad thing, for choice of what you do with your efforts and earnings are controlled by a central power, instead of you.

Yah, it's a blanket statement, but we're concerned with liberty. Someone gets into smoking, they eventually get lung cancer--why is it MY responsibility to support someone who knowingly used something that gives them cancer? Why should I ever pay for their medical bills? I don't get sick all that much, so it definitely wouldn't be a fair trade. I get screwed. This is what I don't like about socialism. Someone else gets to tell me what I must do.

I chose for me, and no other. They choose for themselves.

Let me put it another way: I have a SERIOUS issue with "authority". There is no one more qualified to run my life than me. Just like I think no one is more qualified to run your life than you. You can play in the socialism pool all you want--just don't pull me in.

It really comes to that in all the arguments. If I'm not doing anything to anyone else, what gives anyone the right to tell me what to do?

That's taxes, gun control, regulations, etc.

As soon as someone can give me an answer to that really important question, socialism will always be bad juju for me.

Criminals will always get anything they can to serve any purpose they decide upon..much less the government.
why make it easier for them

I believe *cough* The British came over here...sometime before you were born yesterday..with a highly trained military, fought a load of farmers, burned their capitol, etc.
A few years later the redcoats left and left them alone and it surely was not because they fought with their bare hands.
and we had VERY good generals who were formerly british and some french strategist, not to mention the british were fighting a war across an ocean it took months to traverse, AND we have the french helping us covering the sea and donating ships and help to the united states side to kick the brits' ass, now who was born when?

Hmmm..yes..Australia and Great Britain..after enacting forms of Anti-Gun legislation found a 42%-65% increase in crime...nation-wide. Somebody was thanking people like you for it.
can you cite sources? demented hamsters cited sources and 65% isnt much when you have a sub 1.0 per capita rate, where in america we have over 7

I admire your tenacity, Chess Squares - but honestly, I gave up on this particular debate after Zaxon said that civvies should be allowed to own anti-tank launchers and surface-to-air missiles. :(

...that and the fact that the-pro gun side cannot seem to differentiate between trying to reduce deaths per year and stopping them altogether - according to them, unless a potential solution would completely erradicate gun crime/deaths overnight, it's not worth considering...

Criminals will always get anything they can to serve any purpose they decide upon..much less the government.

So you propose emulating what the criminals do to level the playing field? Pffft, that kind of one-upmanship is the same sort of mentality that leads to tit-for-tat revenge that is so highlighted in your (if you're American) news when they attempt to paint Muslim society in a negative light.

I believe *cough* The British came over here...sometime before you were born yesterday..with a highly trained military, fought a load of farmers, burned their capitol, etc.
A few years later the redcoats left and left them alone and it surely was not because they fought with their bare hands.

And of course many of the people that you're calling farmers were also former redcoats or had similar training. And you had home court advantage.

Being from the country that burned down your capitol, let me say that we don't enshrine gun ownship as a right. And we have (as the regular readers of this thread know well by now) as many or more guns per capita here in Canada than you do in the US. But we don't shoot each other the way you do down there. This isn't a thread about banning guns.

And yet in all that time, just how many foreign attacks have you had on your country? I remember Pearl Harbour, and I remember the WTC attacks. Did all of your guns help you then?

And how about up here in poor defenseless Canada? Care to tell us about all the foreign invaders that have taken advantage of us because we don't have the right to bear arms and form militias?

Hmmm..yes..Australia and Great Britain..after enacting forms of Anti-Gun legislation found a 42%-65% increase in crime...nation-wide. Somebody was thanking people like you for it.

"Crime". You know, driving under the influence of alcohol is a crime. Did they have an increase in that? Gee, better give back the guns.

Or are you talking about murders due to guns? Because if so, look at your stats again. Those went down down down. It's property crimes that rose.

And by and large, those of us who aren't on the "gotta have guns" side are saying that human life is more important that property. You may disagree, as many others have, but for the umpteenth time there's not really anybody saying that BANNING guns is what they want. So why do people interpret restrictions or conditions as bans?

I admire your tenacity, Chess Squares - but honestly, I gave up on this particular debate after Zaxon said that civvies should be allowed to own anti-tank launchers and surface-to-air missiles. :(
i ignored him

OK, I should know better but I have to respond to this:
Hmmm..yes..Australia and Great Britain..after enacting forms of Anti-Gun legislation found a 42%-65% increase in crime...nation-wide. Somebody was thanking people like you for it.
This is a popular myth thrown about by people who know no better. I can't speak for Great Britian, but in Australia this is an outright lie. I don't know where this particular myth started - I would be most interested to see some links to this.

I Just find it amazing that people think that they can eliminate crime by restricting and punishing Law Abiding citizens instead of criminals.

I Just find it amazing that people think that they can eliminate crime by restricting and punishing Law Abiding citizens instead of criminals.
i find it amazing you people can still pretend regulating guns is the same as banning them

Firearms have three main purposes. The first and the least important of them is sporting: clay games, such as skeet, and target shooting. These ritualized sports are of no more danger to the society at large than judo or fencing. The second is hunting. For many people, it is both an important source of protein and an integral aspect of their cultural identity.

The most important purpose of personal arms is self-defense. The definition and reality of self-defense is reluctant participation. The same people who learn to handle firearms, usually hold certifcates in First Aid and CPR. That does not mean that they are just waiting for others to choke or suffer a heart attack. However, if someone around them does have a problem, they can help.

People purchase guns out of necessity, much the same way they buy accident insurance and fire extinguishers. Fortunately, unlike other emergency management tools, firearms readily lend themselves to non-emergency uses. Weapons suitable for saving lives from violent attacks are also used in sporting competitions and for hunting. The recreational and non-emergency use of firearms enables their owners to stay proficient with their tools.

While many people carry a weapon willingly as a badge of their personal freedom, most find effective weapons, such as full-size pistols or submachine guns burdensome, especially once the weight of ammunition and accessories is added. However, people do so to avoid coming to grief at the hands of the few violent felons who do not value lives and well-being of others.

I would like to comment on several popular views about firearms.

If only firearms were outlawed, many social problems will disappear.

Firearms are tools, not causes. By the same logic, banning needles will prevent drug use. In reality, druggies would use alternate delivery methods, while diabetics who need needles to inject insulin would be out of luck. By the same token, violent felons would still have guns or switch to edged and blunt weapons, leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable. For better or for worse, guns are effective equalizers.

Nobody needs a machine gun for hunting Bambi.

Primary purpose of personal weapons is not hunting but preventing criminals of all ilks from hunting you and your dependents. And effective weapons, up to and including machine guns, are very helpful in keeping you and yours alive in the face of adversity. In historical terms, today's hunting rifles are 1950s military weapons.

Guns are too effective for protection.

Adherents of that theory advocate tear gas or tasers. Come again? They are asking you to handle the situations for which police require shotguns, body armor and superior numbers alone, with only marginally effective tools at your disposal.

Everyone should just learn martial arts.

Most people do not have the time to become very proficient: guns have a much less severe learning curve. Moreover, most martial arts trainers advocate retreat in the face of a knife or another weapon. Fast retreat is least available to the same people who cannot fight with bare hands.

Gun owners can get trigger-happy and blow everyone away.

Psychopaths intent on mass murder can and have used other means, such as gasoline, explosives, knives and garrots. Normal people concerned about concequences of their actions are not likely to kill on a whim. Even a justified homicide (such as to prevent a mugging) would entail legal expenses in excess of $10,000. A wrongful killing would likely land the perpetrator in prison. For these reasons, every gun owner I know is more polite when carrying a firearm; responsibility and restraint are practiced most deliberately.

Banning large capacity magazines will help prevent crime

Murder and drug dealing are already illegal. Can we really expect someone contemplating a shooting spree think "Oh, man! I better not use any magazines over 10 rounds when shooting up that McDonalds...they are illegal"? Just passing another law will not deter the criminally inclined: it will, however, make self-defense less effective. As for the need for large magazines for legitimate self-protection, ask the people who faced mobs of hundreds during the LA riots.

Why would anyone need military-style weapons?

A synonym for "military-style" is "reliable, effective and relatively inexpensive". Since you have a right to self-defense, you would benefit from access to the most effective tools available.

Women should avoid guns. Assailants would simply take the guns away.

In reality, that does not happen. Guns are not very complicated: it is hard to screw up pointing and hitting the intended target at the distance of a few feet. It is not always necessary to shoot the perpetrator: presenting a credible threat of bodily harm is usually enough to stop an attack.

We should turn the other cheek...

The quote referred to a blow to one's pride, not a life-threatening assault. Also, most people who would not defend themselves would fight for their child or spouse. Even so, pacifism may be a valid choice for some individuals. Forcing that choice on everyone is neither fair nor realistic.

Why are gun owners so hostile about "reasonable gun control"?

For most gun owners, personal liberty is as much an ethos as Christianity or Judaism, and people who'd confiscate and burn their Bibles/rifles/Torahs elicit a strong emotional response.

Gun control laws seek to make people defenseless in the face of danger, violate property rights and strike at the personal freedom and self-determination. But, as Stalin was fond of saying, "you can't make progress without breaking a few heads." Do you agree?

I admire your tenacity, Chess Squares - but honestly, I gave up on this particular debate after Zaxon said that civvies should be allowed to own anti-tank launchers and surface-to-air missiles. :(

...that and the fact that the-pro gun side cannot seem to differentiate between trying to reduce deaths per year and stopping them altogether - according to them, unless a potential solution would completely erradicate gun crime/deaths overnight, it's not worth considering...

Your goal is admirable, but impossible. I'd rather hear feasible solutions, that's all.

For those of us who grew up with freedom of choice, socialism is a bad thing, for choice of what you do with your efforts and earnings are controlled by a central power, instead of you.

But don't you pay for public school regardless of whether you have kids? Or pay for roads regardless of whether you drive a vehicle or use transit?

You're already playing into systems that are socialist in structure. Don't be a self-hater. ;)

And in a democracy, you're part of the central power remember.

Yah, it's a blanket statement, but we're concerned with liberty. Someone gets into smoking, they eventually get lung cancer--why is it MY responsibility to support someone who knowingly used something that gives them cancer? Why should I ever pay for their medical bills? I don't get sick all that much, so it definitely wouldn't be a fair trade. I get screwed. This is what I don't like about socialism. Someone else gets to tell me what I must do.

If you follow the laws of the land, someone already tells you what you must do. Or more often, what you must NOT do.

As for "I don't get sick all that much"... whatever you pay in medical insurance or user fees or however it is that United Statesians get medical care, it isn't enough to maintain a doctor who is available when you need to see him, the attendant nurse, the technicians that take your samples and run the analyses, and keep the whole inter-related structure going.

So wherever that extra money comes from, chances are you can trace at least some of it back to your taxes or to subsidies (which really amount to the same thing, don't they?). THAT'S socialist too.

Those of us from countries with national healthcare aren't that different, except that we say that medical attention is a right. I know that some people in this thread have naysayed that, saying it's a priviledge, but I disagree. Because we don't have it in our constitution is meaningless. Canada's only had a constitution since 1982. It's a piece of paper, it's not where our liberty and way of life comes from.

And we wouldn't spend the staggering percentage of our economy maintaining a priviledge. We're a wealthy country compared to many, but it COSTS to have such a system. You'll note we haven't abolished it. Other countries with a national healthcare system feel the same. We prefer life over (my words) death, or those that would deal in death over things that we don't hold as dear as life.

I chose for me, and no other. They choose for themselves.

"No man is an island." :)

Let me put it another way: I have a SERIOUS issue with "authority". There is no one more qualified to run my life than me. Just like I think no one is more qualified to run your life than you. You can play in the socialism pool all you want--just don't pull me in.

Oh, but the water is niiiiiice! And there are bubble jets! Won't you come try the bubble jets? C'mon, just stick your big toe in. :)

It really comes to that in all the arguments. If I'm not doing anything to anyone else, what gives anyone the right to tell me what to do?

You've not agreed with anything I've said previously about a "common good", and that's okay. But that's my answer to you. We're not trying to tell (force) you into anything. We want you to come, if you're going to, willingly.

Although I wonder... if you voted Democrat last time in your federal election, does that mean that you're being told what to do in a way that you wouldn't be if you'd voted Republican?

That's taxes, gun control, regulations, etc.

As soon as someone can give me an answer to that really important question, socialism will always be bad juju for me.

I know you love your country, or the way of life possible there. And no, you couldn't pursue it in exactly the same way here. But... would you consider moving to Canada, ever? Our national healthcare ensures that the socialists don't have cooties...

I Just find it amazing that people think that they can eliminate crime by restricting and punishing Law Abiding citizens instead of criminals.

It's about control, Jersey, not actually eliminating crime. They want to make everyone do what they feel is right. But only what they think is right. I, on the other hand would tell them, "Do what you want, just leave me out of it." I'm not trying to control any one else.

What those that want the control in this country don't realize is that not many actually would stand for a tighter grip than is now present.

I Just find it amazing that people think that they can eliminate crime by restricting and punishing Law Abiding citizens instead of criminals.

All I can tell you is that murders went down in all of these countries that have tighter gun restrictions than the US. Some have banned them, others haven't. ALL have tighter restrictions.

Where's your current example of where it doesn't work?

It's about control, Jersey, not actually eliminating crime. They want to make everyone do what they feel is right. But only what they think is right. I, on the other hand would tell them, "Do what you want, just leave me out of it." I'm not trying to control any one else.

Do you really, after everything I've said, still believe I want to control you? Honestly?

What those that want the control in this country don't realize is that not many actually would stand for a tighter grip than is now present.

Which of course leaves me out of it, since I'm from another country. ;)

All I can tell you is that murders went down in all of these countries that have tighter gun restrictions than the US.

Actually, they did not go down. They were that low even before those restrictions appeared.

In the UK, Australia, and NZ they were far lower.

ALL have tighter restrictions.

Switzerland.

But don't you pay for public school regardless of whether you have kids? Or pay for roads regardless of whether you drive a vehicle or use transit?


Yup, and Libertarians are trying to change that.


You're already playing into systems that are socialist in structure. Don't be a self-hater. ;)


I'm not a self-hater. I vehemently dislike what's happened to this country, and the road it's following.


And in a democracy, you're part of the central power remember.


It's not supposed to be a strict democracy. It's supposed to be a federal republic, where the individual, rather than the common good, is what's protected.


If you follow the laws of the land, someone already tells you what you must do. Or more often, what you must NOT do.

As for "I don't get sick all that much"... whatever you pay in medical insurance or user fees or however it is that United Statesians get medical care, it isn't enough to maintain a doctor who is available when you need to see him, the attendant nurse, the technicians that take your samples and run the analyses, and keep the whole inter-related structure going.

So wherever that extra money comes from, chances are you can trace at least some of it back to your taxes or to subsidies (which really amount to the same thing, don't they?). THAT'S socialist too.


That's not how it works here. If you have insurance, which you have an actual choice to purchase, that pays for the bills. Unless you are older or disabled in some fashion, you have to come up with the cash some way. It isn't subsidized like you think it is.

The costs would be much lower if it weren't for the lawyers and insurance rackets going on in this country with lawsuits.


Those of us from countries with national healthcare aren't that different, except that we say that medical attention is a right. I know that some people in this thread have naysayed that, saying it's a priviledge, but I disagree. Because we don't have it in our constitution is meaningless. Canada's only had a constitution since 1982. It's a piece of paper, it's not where our liberty and way of life comes from.

And we wouldn't spend the staggering percentage of our economy maintaining a priviledge. We're a wealthy country compared to many, but it COSTS to have such a system. You'll note we haven't abolished it. Other countries with a national healthcare system feel the same. We prefer life over (my words) death, or those that would deal in death over things that we don't hold as dear as life.


A priviledge is something that a government grants. A right surpasses governmental control. If you (global--not necessarily you, Wild) are forcing someone to pay for someone else's ANYTHING, you are not supporting rights. It's supporting governmental force.

However, that is all moot (and really a lot of semantics on both our parts), due to the fact that your country is yours and my country is mine. Liberty is first here. More important than life. That's why we went to war to get away from Britain. It's different up by you--and that's fine.

I'm glad you're one of the guys just talking about it and trying to convince, as opposed to those that just want to force it and move on.


"No man is an island." :)


I've said it before, I'm for severely limited government, not complete abolishment of it. I wouldn't be alone. My business dealings and day-to-day life would still involve others.


Oh, but the water is niiiiiice! And there are bubble jets! Won't you come try the bubble jets? C'mon, just stick your big toe in. :)


Bought the bubble jets for my own tub, when we built the house. :) Thanks, though.


You've not agreed with anything I've said previously about a "common good", and that's okay. But that's my answer to you. We're not trying to tell (force) you into anything. We want you to come, if you're going to, willingly.


You're not. Others would just love to force it.


Although I wonder... if you voted Democrat last time in your federal election, does that mean that you're being told what to do in a way that you wouldn't be if you'd voted Republican?


I didn't vote either in the last election, and I still won't this election. The Libertarians are getting my vote.


I know you love your country, or the way of life possible there. And no, you couldn't pursue it in exactly the same way here. But... would you consider moving to Canada, ever? Our national healthcare ensures that the socialists don't have cooties...

Hey, what's wrong with cooties??? :) In all seriousness, not at this time in my life--it wouldn't jive with my philosophy. Besides, Wisconsin gets cold enough! We'll probably be moving further South in the next few years, to get away from the regular snowfalls. Taking a look at Charlotte, actually. They have a great deal in the way of Information Security, due to a large Microsoft regional office being there, as well as it being the home to Bank of America.

I wouldn't mind actually getting up there, one of these days just to see the place. It's funny, I've lived less than 300 miles from the border for most of my life, and never once been across. I've been to more European countries that Western hemisphere countries! It's odd. Haven't been to Mexico, either. The other half and I are thinking about taking a trip to see Vancouver and Victoria. We'll see if it happens. She's rather partial to the tropics.

Do you really, after everything I've said, still believe I want to control you? Honestly?


You? No.

Actually, they did not go down. They were that low even before those restrictions appeared.

You're right, they were low before the restrictions. But since the counter argument is that if the population doesn't have guns, the criminals will and the law abiding citizens will suffer for it.

And what happened? Criminals got the guns, the potential was there, and it didn't happen. Lower.

In the UK, Australia, and NZ they were far lower.

Funny, you had an Australian speak up when you said that earlier and he/she indicated that not only isn't that true, he's not sure where anybody could have got that idea. I must have missed your reply to him.

And while being a member of a group or country doesn't automatically make you more knowledgeable about things, I think it's worth hearing from someone that's a product of a society we're refering to, don't you?

Switzerland.

Indeed.

And anything different about Switzerland that might have something to do with that?

Funny, you had an Australian speak up when you said that earlier and he/she indicated that not only isn't that true, he's not sure where anybody could have got that idea. I must have missed your reply to him.


I never said that crime was very high in Australia. It's low. But it's HIGHER than it was beofre the ban.