Amendment II

[rabidbadger]

Amendment II

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

discuss.

[rabidbadger]

OK, I'll start. It is about militias. regulated militias. People with weapons need to be "well regulated" the idea being that localities can call upon folks with weapons to protect their municipalities.

[Patch]

I believe the second amendment is very important, even to this day. I know many argue that it was instated right after a long war, and that it was needed then, and isn't needed now, but I disagree. I believe that more people need to exercise their right to bear arms to help keep the government in check. You can have a room full of kings and emperors, but the one in charge is the man with the gun.

I live in Washington state. Back in the 60s or 70s we adopted an unconstitutional law that California instated making it illegal to open carry anything that could be considered a weapon. It bloody sucks. What it does is forces you to get a license to carry a concealed weapon. Some people can't get concealed weapon license, so they are denied their constitutional right to bear arms in my state.

Anyways... Back to Mass Effect.

[Patch]

OK, I'll start. It is about militias. regulated militias. People with weapons need to be "well regulated" the idea being that localities can call upon folks with weapons to protect their municipalities.

The first part is about malitias. The second part states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". People, not an entity known as a malitia.

[rabidbadger]

it's one sentence dude, just an odd syntax in this day and age. but I agree, it does definitely say we can have armaments.

[phatlip12]

I support the right to bare arms. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I see nothing wrong with a person keeping a gun in their home giving they follow the proper safety percussions. On the other hand, I oppose a person having the authority to go out in public with a deadly weapon. The odds of ever having to use it to begin with are so slim the fact that you're carrying around such a deadly weapon seems...excessive to say the least. Kind of like walking around in a rubber suite because you're afraid of getting struck by lightening but only the rubber suite is capable of killing someone (don't take that example too seriously, but you get my point). There are other means of protecting yourself. In the unlikely event that you'll ever need to pull out the gun a non-lethal weapon should work just as fine. Why not carry around a taser or pepper spray as opposed to a deadly firearm?

The only scenario where I can see the use of a conceal and carry permitted being justified is in extreme cases. Such as being put in the witness protection plan due to a threat of being murdered by a killer at large for example.

[Patch]

The odds of ever having to use it to begin with are so slim the fact that you're carrying around such a deadly weapon seems...excessive to say the least.

I was shot at once. I wish I had a gun to even out the situation. I didn't tho.

I rather have one and not have to use it, than have to use one and not have one.

[comhcinc]

it's one sentence dude, just an odd syntax in this day and age. but I agree, it does definitely say we can have armaments.
yep and of course by "we" it means well regulated militias i.e. police and the national guard. it doens't mention what type arms ( hand guns, rifles, rpgs) or just how they can be "beared" (concealed, loaded). this was left up in the air.

now before i give my opinion, i got a couple of questions for the pro gun people?

do you think people should be allowed to carried concealed weapons?

( i think that is a bad idea all around. i think if we allow people to carry guns it should be against the law to conceal them. if you have a weapon everyone should be able to cearly see it. it just makes more sense to me. seems it "detour crime".)


a lot of people want to "bear arms to help keep the government in check" well nothing you can buy in this country can stop a M1-A2 main battle tank (i am not even going to talk about jets). so do you think people should be able to buy advanced weapony? should i be able to buy a tank if i could afford one ( i can't)? [i won't go silly on you and want to buy a nuke]


should there be an age limit on who can "bear" a weapon?

please give me your thoughfil answer on these questions, thanks and i might have more


*my two cents*
i don't like hand guns and think they should be illegal. nor do i like concealed weapons but i have already talked about that. i have no problem with semi automatic rifles and shotguns, but i really don't like the idea of people carrying them everywhere.

[phatlip12]

I was shot at once. I wish I had a gun to even out the situation. I didn't tho.

I rather have one and not have to use it, than have to use one and not have one.

Describe the situation some more, how and why where you shot at? Where at?

Still doesn't change the fact that it's unlikely to happen. Again I ask why not go with a non lethal approach such as a taser? Cops are more likely to be put in deadly situations such as this more then anyone else (which is why they carry guns) however, many of them resort to using a taser rather then a gun when in potentially dangerous situations. If it works for them why not for you whom is a hell of a less likely to ever have to use it?

[crumbles]

...I oppose a person having the authority to go out in public with a deadly weapon. The odds of ever having to use it to begin with are so slim the fact that you're carrying around such a deadly weapon seems...excessive to say the least.Right. Then don't wear your seatbelt. That seems too excessive to strap yourself in to protect yourself. What are the odds, right? Besides, you don't seem to remember older arguments very much. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Justice, your lifetime odds of being a victim of violent crime are 1 out of 2. Yes, it’s a flip of the coin as to whether you’ll be the victim of violent crime at some point in your life. But hey, it's only a 50% chance, right? What are the odds! This argument has been done before. It obviously went no where as the same people are spouting off the same stupid, bullshit, and tired arguments. The same people who consider others "uninformed."

http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79634&postcount=52

[Patch]

do you think people should be allowed to carried concealed weapons?

( i think that is a bad idea all around. i think if we allow people to carry guns it should be against the law to conceal them. if you have a weapon everyone should be able to clearly see it. it just makes more sense to me. seems it "detour crime".)


a lot of people want to "bear arms to help keep the government in check" well nothing you can buy in this country can stop a M1-A2 main battle tank (i am not even going to talk about jets). so do you think people should be able to buy advanced weaponry? should i be able to buy a tank if i could afford one ( i can't)? [i won't go silly on you and want to buy a nuke]


should there be an age limit on who can "bear" a weapon?

I get what you're saying about not allowing concealed weapons, but I don't really see how making it illegal would do anything more than say making pot illegal. People would still do it, and you really couldn't tell if someone was concealing could you? It would only really be enforced if someone was searched and a concealed weapon was found.

If the government rolls in M1-A2s on its own people, I'd say that would probably cause some other countries to jump in. And it may lead to a huge up rising. Yeah, a gun you get at a gun shop couldn't do shit against it, but at that point, would that entirely matter? I mean, I would think the meaning of standing against that would probably do more than shooting the tank. Like Tiananmen Square.

Last I heard about buying tanks was before the war, and you could. They just didn't come with ammo, or engines, and they were older tanks. Same for helicopters. I really don't have a problem with it. As long as people are required to be licensed to operate them, and can only do so in certain areas. (A tank would destroy a roadway.) and if someone abuses the use of it (such as hurting others with it) they are punished appropriately.

[Patch]

Describe the situation some more, how and why where you shot at? Where at?

Surprisingly enough, it was a religious dispute. (I wasn't the religious one.) I was shot at point blank. It missed me. I had a multitool with me, I stabbed the person in the shoulder. If I had a sidearm with me I would have pulled it on him and called the cops, but I didn't, and I ended up having to actually hurt him, so the cops were never involved.

[Berrex]

Here's my take on it. One of the ideas that this country was founded on was the idea that all human beings have three unalienable rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. This is why the Second Amendment exists. Armament allows us to defend ourselves when it is needed; hence, we get to keep our right to live when that right is being abridged upon or threatened. It allows us to organize in militias. It puts power into the hands of the people to keep the state in line (which is why it states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"). If the government becomes too oppressive, a militia and the right to armament allows us to take any action necessary; violent action, even, if it is needed to change and/or overthrow the government to better suit the needs of the people. For this reason, I believe that the suggestion that weapons be banned, taken from us, is an unacceptable proposition. It denies our right to protect ourselves, and diminishes our ability to protect our right to life and liberty. I do understand that people with handguns going against a tank is unlikely. But honestly, if it escalates to that point, there is likely a full-scale revolution going on anyways, and the country would be divided into a couple (or a few) major factions, which would level the odds anyhow. It most likely wouldn't be 50,000 John Does up against the US Army. I think that a more likely situation of citizens using guns to take action against government tyranny is in the instance of police brutality. Tasers, anybody? So far in these cases nobody could do anything but stand by and watch the victim/suspect/whatever you wish to call him getting tased, unless they wanted to be tased and arrested themselves, because of the fact that they simply had no means to do anything. That's scary.

Now on the topic of concealed weapons. I think we should be able to carry our weapons in any manner we wish. If we don't want people to see that we're armed, we can conceal them. If we feel safer with our weapons exposed (as a kind of "don't mess with me" sentiment; some people prefer the weapon of intimidation over anything else), then we should be allowed to do that as well. Ultimately, let us decide for ourselves.

Now I know some people have a problem with everybody being armed, especially in public. But what kind of idiot would try to rob a bank or mug somebody when he/she knows that there is a possibility that there are several armed individuals in the immediate area that can take him/her down in the blink of an eye? Chances are, they'll be intimidated enough to back down and avoid committing the crime. Even if this is not the case, the victims will at least have a means to defend themselves. Why on earth should we take that away from them? That's just wrong, in my opinion. Now an idea has been brought up about being armed with tasers. If people want to do that, all the more power to them. I'm all for it. However, we should still be allowed to use our weapon of choice. Case in point, if a gunman is 100 feet from you and firing at you, and all you have is a taser, you can't do a darn thing, and you're basically screwed until he runs out of ammo. If you have a gun, the odds are evened, and the gunman will actually have something to be worried about.

Ultimately, we need to stick to the Constitution. It's there for our benefit; let's not diminish it, please. That's been GW's job these last 7 years.

[phatlip12]

Right. Then don't wear your seatbelt. That seems too excessive to strap yourself in to protect yourself. What are the odds, right? Besides, you don't seem to remember older arguments very much. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Justice, your lifetime odds of being a victim of violent crime are 1 out of 2. Yes, it’s a flip of the coin as to whether you’ll be the victim of violent crime at some point in your life. But hey, it's only a 50% chance, right? What are the odds! This argument has been done before. It obviously went no where as the same people are spouting off the same stupid, bullshit, and tired arguments. The same people who consider others "uninformed."

http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79634&postcount=52

Well goodness, myself friends and family sure are a lucky group of people when it comes to being victims of a violent crime thus far. Car accidents on the other hand...not so much. I know quite a few people that have been in car accidents. Of course that has nothing to do with the likely hood of being in a car accident being much higher then that of a violent crime.

Also, what exactly constitutes as being a "violent crime". Certainly getting punched in the face by a drunk dude is a "violent crime" but isn't grounds for using a fire arm. I'm sure your stats leave that part out huh? BTW, how about those stats?

[crumbles]

How about those stats by the way?You seriously need me to explain why your sampling isn't relevant to the stats? That's not only really pathetic, but probably one of the most egocentric things I have ever read in my life.

I have been the victim of a violent crime. 4 times. My close friend, twice, my parents have both been robbed at their home as well. What about those stats!

See how stupid your argument is now.

[phatlip12]

You seriously need me to explain why your sampling isn't relevant to the stats? That's not only really pathetic, but probably one of the most egocentric things I have ever read in my life.

I have been the victim of a violent crime. 4 times. My close friend, twice, my parents have both been robbed at their home as well. What about those stats!

See how stupid your argument is now.

When I said "How about those stats" I was referring to the stats you mentioned. I'd like to see a link?

You also missed my edit in that last post:

Also, what exactly constitutes as being a "violent crime". Certainly getting punched in the face by a drunk dude is a "violent crime" but isn't grounds for using a fire arm. I'm sure your stats leave that part out huh? BTW, how about those stats?

[comhcinc]

You seriously need me to explain why your sampling isn't relevant to the stats? That's not only really pathetic, but probably one of the most egocentric things I have ever read in my life.

I have been the victim of a violent crime. 4 times. My close friend, twice, my parents have both been robbed at their home as well. What about those stats!

See how stupid your argument is now.

you know calling people stupid and pathetic really doesn't help your class. also claiming to be a victim of a violent crime, four times no less, really seems to counter the idea that having a gun protects you. i mean i know you are armed, right? i just don't see how that helps your case

[crumbles]

Also, what exactly constitutes as being a "violent crime". Certainly getting punched in the face by a drunk dude is a "violent crime" but isn't grounds for using a fire arm. I'm sure your stats leave that part out huh? BTW, how about those stats?I was answering your stupid statement of: "myself friends and family sure are a lucky group of people when it comes to being victims of a violent crime thus far." My stat argument is relevant to that ridiculous statement you made.

All of those stats have been posted before. Go back to that thread and get them yourself. I'm not posting all the bullshit again just for you to never read it and then 6 months later use the same stupid arguments and then tell me to post more facts. I don't give a shit if you don't want to carry a gun, I could care less. If you think you can fend off someone with your shoes, then good for you. I only have a problem if you try to take my right to carry away. Once you start doing that, we have a problem. If the government tries to take away the citizens guns, there will be an even bigger problem. Oh wait, they've tried that bullshit before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI).

"No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons."

[crumbles]

you know calling people stupid and pathetic really doesn't help your class. also claiming to be a victim of a violent crime, four times no less, really seems to counter the idea that having a gun protects you. i mean i know you are armed, right? i just don't see how that helps your caseI know, I should just stick to calling people other names like: Rush, and sheep, right? :rolleyes:

They all happened before I was allowed by law to carry a firearm. Since carrying I have only almost had a problem once. Thanks to the gun, he ran.

[comhcinc]

I know, I should just stick to calling people other names like: Rush, and sheep, right? :rolleyes:

They all happened before I was allowed by law to carry a firearm. Since carrying I have only almost had a problem once. Thanks to the gun, he ran.
but what about your parents? they were old enough to own guns right? what about them? also if you really feel it is your right why would you care what the "unconstitutional" law says?

[crumbles]

but what about your parents? they were old enough to own guns right? what about them?Are these seriously real arguments? Yes, they sure were old enough to own them. Unfortunately they didn't own them at the time.

[xibalba]

People quit picking on guns. Guns don't kill people bullets do, guns only get the bullets going really fast.

[phatlip12]

I was answering your stupid statement of: "myself friends and family sure are a lucky group of people when it comes to being victims of a violent crime thus far." My stat argument is relevant to that ridiculous statement you made.

All of those stats have been posted before. Go back to that thread and get them yourself. I'm not posting all the bullshit again just for you to never read it and then 6 months later use the same stupid arguments and then tell me to post more facts. I don't give a shit if you don't want to carry a gun, I could care less. If you think you can fend off someone with your shoes, then good for you. I only have a problem if you try to take my right to carry away. Once you start doing that, we have a problem. If the government tries to take away the citizens guns, there will be an even bigger problem. Oh wait, they've tried that bullshit before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI).

"No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons."

They've been posted before? I quickly glanced over the thread you linked to but found no such links. Again, it was a quick glance....but I have reason to believe no such link exists and if it goes, I wonder if it addresses my question of what exactly = violent crime?

I think you're right to carry should be took away. Sorry if you have a problem with that, but I oppose conceal carry permits.

Ps. I love how the dude in the video said they had bigger weapons then the cops. WTF?! Some of those cops had freaking assault riffles with them. Thats kind of scary. Not saying there guns should have been took away (again, I have nothing against fire arms in the HOME) but...wow. Right to bear arms yes, but what KIND of arms did they have?!

[comhcinc]

Are these seriously real arguments? Yes, they sure were old enough to own them. Unfortunately they didn't own them at the time.

i'm just wondering. for someone who is such a fan of guns it seems you and your friends and family seem to being attacked an awful lot. i can see how it would make a person afraid and paranoid (i know i've been there) but really by your own "stats" you guys are all very "lucky"

[Patch]

I think you're right to carry should be took away. Sorry if you have a problem with that, but I oppose conceal carry permits.

"If they come for your freedom, you must not only resist, you must strike back with a vengeance that will stun them" - Henry Rollins

I am a hippie. I try my best to not be violent, but if you come for my weapons. I will strike back.

Right to bear arms yes, but what KIND of arms did they have?!

Isn't it obvious?

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg

[phatlip12]

"If they come for your freedom, you must not only resist, you must strike back with a vengeance that will stun them" - Henry Rollins

I am a hippie. I try my best to not be violent, but if you come for my weapons. I will strike back.



Ugh...what exactly is that supposed to mean?!

[crumbles]

They've been posted before? I quickly glanced over the thread you linked to but found no such links. Again, it was a quick glance....but I have reason to believe no such link exists and if it goes, I wonder if it addresses my question of what exactly = violent crime?It doesn't matter if I post it for numerous reasons.

a) if won't change your mind even if I do.
b) you'll just forget about it and post the same argument later.
c) you'll find some excuse why the data is irrelevant.

If you're interested in the numbers, go and google: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin

The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adolescence are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

Nearly 70 percent of adolescents are estimated to fall victim to violent crime. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

Persons age 12 to 19 experience overall violence at rates higher than those for persons age 25 or older. (U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2004)

I think you're right to carry should be took away. Sorry if you have a problem with that, but I oppose conceal carry permits.Then you're on the right track by voting Democrat.

[Patch]

Ugh...what exactly is that supposed to mean?!

It means that I will defend my right. My freedom. To own and carry weapons. Mine and everyone elses. To the death.

You clearly arn't aruging an interpretation of the second ammendment, but that you believe the right to bear arms should not be a right.

[comhcinc]

I am a hippie. I try my best to not be violent, but if you come for my weapons. I will strike back.

Bear arms.......yep i was waiting for it.

patch you seem to be a little inconsistent. you have already admitted that the army has you out gunned (i assuming that is who would be coming for your weapons) and yet you still make statments like that. that seems kinda like big talk to me.


here are two more questions i want to throw out there.

do you think it would be better if everyone was armed?

is there any reason, other than being batsh*t crazy, that a person should be denied a gun?

[crumbles]

do you think it would be better if everyone was armed?Yes (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288).

Criminals will tell you they love gun control laws. What does that tell you.

[phatlip12]

It doesn't matter if I post it for numerous reasons.

a) if won't change your mind even if I do.
b) you'll just forget about it and post the same argument later.
c) you'll find some excuse why the data is irrelevant.

If you're interested in the numbers, go and google: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin



Then you're on the right track by voting Democrat.

One question:

What constitutes a violent crime and out of those statistics, how many of those crimes do you think justifies the use of a concealed weapon? Violent crime is a very broad term.

[crumbles]

One question:

What constitutes a violent crime and out of those statistics, how many of those crimes do you think justifies the use of a concealed weapon? Violent crime is a very broad term.See point subsection c.

[Patch]

patch you seem to be a little inconsistent. you have already admitted that the army has you out gunned (i assuming that is who would be coming for your weapons) and yet you still make statments like that. that seems kinda like big talk to me.


here are two more questions i want to throw out there.

do you think it would be better if everyone was armed?

is there any reason, other than being batsh*t crazy, that a person should be denied a gun?

Well, it really depends on what we're talking about. Are we talking about a country wide disarmament of all citezens? If so, I don't think the army would be. I think the country would be fractured. I think many of those in the military would rise up against the government.

I don't see how I'm being inconsistent. I have my freedoms, and I will defend them against anyone who trys to take them. Even if it is futile, because I'm not only defending my rights, but those rights of every other person in this country. Even those standing against me.


To answer your questions.

1.) It depends. I belive if we educated people about guns more, than maybe. Many people don't even know how to shoot a gun. (yes, its pretty much point and click, but that doesn't mean you'll hit anything.) If more people were taught how to safely use a firearm, and how serious a thing it is, it could be better, but there are always those who will missuse what they are given.

2.) I believe if you have broken the law you should be without weapons for a period of time. Oh, and if you are a commie. Commies don't deserve guns.

There's probably other reasons, but its too late for me to really think through this.

[phatlip12]

It means that I will defend my right. My freedom. To own and carry weapons. Mine and everyone elses. To the death.

You clearly arn't aruging an interpretation of the second ammendment, but that you believe the right to bear arms should not be a right.

False. I believe in the right to bear arms. My father owns a gun as well as the majority my other family members. I may own a gun one day. However, I oppose conceal and carry permits and believe there should be limitations on what kind of guns should and shouldn't be in the publics hands.

[crumbles]

I may own a gun one day.It will do you a lot of good collecting dust under your bed.

[phatlip12]

See point subsection c.

Is it not a valid question though?

[crumbles]

Is it not a valid question though?No, it's not. Well, for you it's not. Here, I'll show you why.

Definition

Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s definition, violent crimes involve force or threat of force.

[Patch]

forcible rape

Is there another form of rape I'm not aware of?

[comhcinc]

Well, it really depends on what we're talking about. Are we talking about a country wide disarmament of all citezens? If so, I don't think the army would be. I think the country would be fractured. I think many of those in the military would rise up against the government.

first off let me agree with you that the military would not just blindy attack the population of this country. as a retired service man i know that wouldn't happen. but if you feel this way it really negates the whole " i need guns to protect me from the government" argument. right?

now lets go birzaro world and say the prez does declare martial law and the troops do blindly follow his orders and comes after your guns. again what can you do against tanks and jets?

a question just for patch: you do understand the whole "well regulated militia" thing right? are you a part of one?

i have been in two well regulated militias. i was in the national guard, and i am a voulteer deputy

[xibalba]

If I could afford a gun I would own one If I could afford a carry permit I would carry one as well. As long as the person is educated and not crazy I see no problem with carrying.

So if you were on a bus and someone with a bomb got on threatening to blow it up and some one carrying shot and killed him before he could, would be glad the person had a gun or would you still think it was wrong and you would have rather died in a bomb blast.

[Patch]

first off let me agree with you that the military would not just blindy attack the population of this country. as a retired service man i know that wouldn't happen. but if you feel this way it really negates the whole " i need guns to protect me from the government" argument. right?

now lets go birzaro world and say the prez does declare martial law and the troops do blindly follow his orders and comes after your guns. again what can you do against tanks and jets?

a question just for patch: you do understand the whole "well regulated militia" thing right? are you a part of one?

i have been in two well regulated militias. i was in the national guard, and i am a voulteer deputy

The government isn't just the army tho. Jumping into hypothetical: What if the president goes ****ing ape shit and say, takes us into an illegal war, destroys our economy and starts taking away our freedoms one by one? And on top of all that, all the people in office with the power to impeach him don't have the balls to do it? Well, the people could do it, but not without guns.

Why do I have to fire my weapons at a tank? Why can't I say, hide out. Wait for a person to leave their tank for whatever, and take them out. Then take the tank, and I'm even more heavily armed, but maybe I can't do anything at all, but whats the point of the question? Just because I can't do anything against a tank, I shouldn't stand up for my rights? I shouldn't defend them to the death? Should I just become a zombie and do as I'm told?

I do, and I'm not. I'm in no position right now to be a part of such thing. Why do you ask?

[comhcinc]

So if you were on a bus and someone with a bomb got on threatening to blow it up and some one carrying shot and killed him before he could, would be glad the person had a gun or would you still think it was wrong and you would have rather died in a bomb blast.

or guy on bus with bomb (speed? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111257/))/ someone has a gun/shots at guy with bomb/ misses/ kills innocent old lady


or guy on bus with bomb/ no guns/ four people beat bomb down pirate style/ everyone lives

i personally like option 3

quiet frankly i just don't think most people do very good under stress and it's very unlikely that people will not get hurt with things like this happen

[phatlip12]

No, it's not. Well, for you it's not. Here, I'll show you why.

The Department of Justice considers regular ol assault (VERY common crime) to be a violent crime.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm

[phatlip12]

or guy on bus with bomb (speed? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111257/))/ someone has a gun/shots at guy with bomb/ misses/ kills innocent old lady


or guy on bus with bomb/ no guns/ four people beat bomb down pirate style/ everyone lives

i personally like option 3

quiet frankly i just don't think most people do very good under stress and it's very unlikely that people will not get hurt with things like this happen

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF!

Everythings a possibility. What if the guy doesn't get on the bus? What if he doesn't exists?

:P :P :P :P

[xibalba]

or guy on bus with bomb/ no guns/ four people beat bomb down pirate style/ everyone lives\

He sees four people coming at him boom everyone is dead.

anyways your logic is flawed so is phatlips and crumbles. no matter what gun control or not, violent crime isn't going to disappear. only way things should be the way they should be is when the human race is extinct. that way animals can rule and eat each other as nature intended not worry about use wiping them out. If you haven't figured it out by now I hate the human race....

[Patch]

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF!

Everythings a possibility. What if the guy doesn't get on the bus? What if he doesn't exists?

:P :P :P :P

Game theory!

[comhcinc]

The government isn't just the army tho. Jumping into hypothetical: What if the president goes ****ing ape shit and say, takes us into an illegal war, destroys our economy and starts taking away our freedoms one by one? And on top of all that, all the people in office with the power to impeach him don't have the balls to do it? Well, the people could do it, but not without guns.
i know a couple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.) of guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi) that would disagree with you on that

Why do I have to fire my weapons at a tank? Why can't I say, hide out. Wait for a person to leave their tank for whatever, and take them out. becasue that what they would send after you. believe i know (http://revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3831). i've seen it up close. as for the rest of what you said, all i got to say is that if you really feel that way, why ain't you doing that now?

I do, and I'm not. I'm in no position right now to be a part of such thing. Why do you ask? well to me there go hand and hand. you really should have one without the other. i'm not saying you should go off to war but most police departments love volunteer help (see i spelled it right this time:D)

[comhcinc]

He sees four people coming at him boom everyone is dead. or he see the guy (or girl! lets be fair) with the gun and boom! like phatlip said any thing could happen

anyways your logic is flawed so is phatlips and crumbles. no matter what gun control or not, violent crime isn't going to disappear. only way things should be the way they should be is when the human race is extinct. that way animals can rule and eat each other as nature intended not worry about use wiping them out. If you haven't figured it out by now I hate the human race....

first off i love you because you hate the human race. so there! I don't think violent crimes are going to go down if you get rid of hand guns, just that death by violent crime will go down. beatings may go up! but i bet most people would rather have a black eye than be dead. i'm just saying.

[xibalba]

I'm just a lunatic....If I had button that would kill all life on the planet Odds are I would push it.

Beatings can equal brain damage some people would rather be dead then a veggie. :D ;)

[comhcinc]

Beatings can equal brain damage some people would rather be dead then a veggie. :D ;)

but really are they in any condition to complain at that point? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOEE6cWpLPc

[tokenuser]

OK, if the constitution is so important, then it should be examined in historical context.

Everyone eligble to particpate in a well organised militia shall be allowed to maintain a muzzle loading long barrel, for that is the context that the document was written.

The constitution (actually, this amendment) was also written at a time when pretty much all male citizens knew how to load and shoot a long barrel - because that was required for hunting. Women would be excluded, because they should not worry about their pretty little sensibilities on such matters.

[crumbles]

first off let me agree with you that the military would not just blindy attack the population of this country. as a retired service man i know that wouldn't happen. but if you feel this way it really negates the whole " i need guns to protect me from the government" argument. right?You obviously didn't watch that Katrina video I posted.

The Department of Justice considers regular ol assault (VERY common crime) to be a violent crime.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htmFirst, I was quoting the definition of violent crime for the stats I posted. Second, if anyone assaults me, I'm shooting them.

OK, if the constitution is so important, then it should be examined in historical context.

Everyone eligble to particpate in a well organised militia shall be allowed to maintain a muzzle loading long barrel, for that is the context that the document was written.

The constitution (actually, this amendment) was also written at a time when pretty much all male citizens knew how to load and shoot a long barrel - because that was required for hunting. Women would be excluded, because they should not worry about their pretty little sensibilities on such matters.I'm not really sure what you're saying there. If you're doing the whole: "It's referring to the army!" argument, then I disagree with you. First of all, why would they think they would need to say on paper: "Hey, the army is going to need guns!" It's understood that an army is going to need weapons. They would never need to guarantee that right be protected. Second, are we to believe that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in the First Amendment refers to individuals; that "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures" in the Fourth Amendment refers to individuals; that "the people" in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are individuals; but "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment refers to State governments? Nice try. They didn't point out individual liberties being guaranteed in every amendment.... EXCEPT THE 2nd ONE...

Also, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's referring to individual rights in 1846, and again in 1990. In addition, Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. When doing so they didn't attempt to make any guns illegal because it was agreed that would be unconstitutional. Not only Congress agrees, but so does the Supreme Court. This is just the leftists who disagrees. It becomes a problem with their "government take over" mentality.

This is what the 2nd amendment is saying when you understand the words:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Done and done. It means what it says. It's a short, concise way to say "Because our citizens can't be free if they can't defend themselves from criminals, from foreign terrorists, and perhaps from out-of-control government agents, the right of every individual to own weapons, and to carry them for self defense, shall not be infringed." If you wish that weren't what it meant, don't lie about what it says. Be honest and start campaigning for a new amendment.

Never ONCE, EVER, has there ever been a crime reported against an officer of the law or against another citizen from a law abiding CCW holder. NOT ONCE.

[phatlip12]

You obviously didn't watch that Katrina video I posted.

First, I was quoting the definition of violent crime for the stats I posted. Second, if anyone assaults me, I'm shooting them.


Thank you!

You just proved my point in why people shouldn't have conceal and carry permits. Someone punches you in the face and you result back with lethal force? I rest my case.

It's funny how you say democrats are the pansies yet you're the one pulling out a gun and shooting in a fight. If I'm in a fight I use these. (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Econcuss/chenglong/pics/fists.jpg)

[crumbles]

Thank you!

You just proved my point in why people shouldn't have conceal and carry permits. Someone punches you in the face and you result back with lethal force? I rest my case.If you are assaulting me, or my family and I believe I can't stop it, yes, I shoot you.

You know what the answer is to that dumbass! Don't fucking assault people! Quit feeling bad for the bad guy!

So, by you saying you don't want people to carry because of that, is you saying you want the right to go around punching people and assaulting them. Great person you are! Keep rooting for the bad guys!

[phatlip12]

If you are assaulting me, or my family and I believe I can't stop it, yes, I shoot you.

You know what the answer is to that dumbass! Don't fucking assault people! Quit feeling bad for the bad guy!

So, by you saying you don't want people to carry because of that, is you saying you want the right to go around punching people and assaulting them. Great person you are! Keep rooting for the bad guys!

Your logic cracks me up. Imagine a society where the consequences were always this extreme.

Steal a candy bar = Hand gets chopped off
8 miles over the speed limit = lost drivers license
Calling someone a bad name = 30 whips

No I'm not saying I want the right to go around punching people in the face. It's wrong to do that, I'm not "rooting" for the bad guy. However, using lethal force over a non lethal and sometimes minor attack is simply insane. If you got in a fist fight you would resort to KILLING a person? That would be your defense? I hope you never get in a fist fight because:

A. You'll end a persons life when it's not a necessity to save your own
B. You're going to prison

It scares me to think that you have this license. I'm glad you don't live in Maryland.

[crumbles]

Your logic cracks me up. Imagine a society where the consequences were always this extreme.

Steal a candy bar = Hand gets chopped off
8 miles over the speed limit = lost drivers license
Calling someone a bad name = 30 whipsNo, I don't think every situation requires the person to be shot.

No I'm not saying I want the right to go around punching people in the face. It's wrong to do that, I'm not "rooting" for the bad guy. However, using lethal force over a non lethal and sometimes minor attack is simply insane.Sorry, but you don't know how lethal their force is going to be. If someone attacks me or my family, and I have the opportunity to draw, I point the gun in their face, tell them to stop. If they continue, it's lights out for them. My family is safe, bad guy won't bother anyone else again.

If you got in a fist fight you would resort to KILLING a person? That would be your defense?Depends on the situation. I can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I hope you never get in a fist fight because:

A. You'll end a persons life when it's not a necessity to save your own
B. You're going to prisonI won't end someone's life unless I'm in fear for my life, my families, or another citizen who is in trouble. And sorry, but I won't go to jail for killing someone who is in genuine fear for their life from another person (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/senate/pressreleases/senatepassescastledoctrine.pdf).

It scares me to think that you have this license. I'm glad you don't live in Maryland.I know it scares you. Hence, you're a democrat. As I've already pointed out, there has never been a case where a CCW holder has intentionally assaulted a good guy. EVER. I'm glad I don't live in Maryland anymore either. I think they are the only place that has a higher crime rate than Atlanta.

[comhcinc]

You obviously didn't watch that Katrina video I posted.

the video where the guy claims to have "biggier guns" than the national guard? yeah i watched it.

my question is why are you rooting for the bad guys? if i am to believe that guy then i know he had to have bought thoes "bigger guns" on the black market. he is a criminal. he was breaking the law.

[crumbles]

the video where the guy claims to have "biggier guns" than the national guard? yeah i watched it.Um, I don't know what "biggier" guns are, but no, that's not the part I'm talking about. I'm talking about the part where the government is marching down the streets of a neighborhood banging on peoples doors, detaining them, and forcibly taking their guns. That part. You know, the thing you said an army or government wouldn't ever do.

my question is why are you rooting for the bad guys? if i am to believe that guy then i know he had to have bought thoes "bigger guns" on the black market. he is a criminal. he was breaking the law.I don't even really understand that sentence. I assure you though, I don't root for the bad guy. If I hear about a store owner getting robbed, and killing the bad guy, only to hear the bad guys mother scream: "I'm going to sue you!" I laugh at her and pray I get on that jury.

[darknessgp]

Amendment II

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

discuss.

Don't know is this has been said already, as I'm not going to read 6 pages. But the second amendment IMO is to allow a citizen army to be able to exist in case the government goes crazy. I think this mostly came out of the split from Britain.

[comhcinc]

Um, I don't know what "biggier" guns are, but no, that's not the part I'm talking about. I'm talking about the part where the government is marching down the streets of a neighborhood banging on peoples doors, detaining them, and forcibly taking their guns. That part. You know, the thing you said an army or government wouldn't ever do.

now i wonder if you have watched that video? more over i wonder if you know what was happening in new orleans at the time of the report?

i wasn't in the country for this but i know the gish of the situration. new olreans was mostly underwater and people have been ordered to evacuate, for their own safety. during the evacuation, police and national guard was going door to door doing search and rescue. while they were doing S&R they were fired at by the bad guys. thus they started taking guns from people (who should have not even been in the city) for their safety. the people in the video, with their "bigger guns", refused to coperate with law enforcement (which is a crime) . they was detailed, for they own safety and law enforcement, they was searched and released. this is all s.o.p.

[crumbles]

i wasn't in the country for this but i know the gish of the situration. new olreans was mostly underwater and people have been ordered to evacuate, for their own safety. during the evacuation, police and national guard was going door to door doing search and rescue. while they were doing S&R they were fired at by the bad guys. thus they started taking guns from people (who should have not even been in the city) for their safety. the people in the video, with their "bigger guns", refused to coperate with law enforcement (which is a crime) . they was detailed, for they own safety and law enforcement, they was searched and released. this is all s.o.p.Sorry, but I don't think you have the "gish" of the situation yourself. The police chief says in the video: "NO ONE WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE ARMED." They were "detailing" good guys and taking their firearms whether or not they were "coperate"ing with law enforcement or not.

[comhcinc]

Sorry, but I don't think you have the "gish" of the situation yourself. The police chief says in the video: "NO ONE WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE ARMED." They were "detailing" good guys and taking their firearms whether or not they were "coperate"ing with law enforcement or not.

yep that's a direct order for a law enforcement officer. to not listen to that order is against the law. these people were law breakers i.e. the bad guys.

[crumbles]

these people were law breakers i.e. the bad guys.For the last and final time, you are wrong. I seriously wonder if this is why Democrats always vote for asinine laws. They never understand anything that's going on...

Direct quotes from the video you claim to have watched:

Narrator: "...entering houses with guns drawn and instructions to disarm anyone inside."
Reporter: "you say guns will be taken?"
Police Chief: "no one will be allowed to be armed, we will take all weapons."
Narrator: "...residents were handcuffed on the ground. In the end, police took their weapons and let them stay in their homes."

ANYONE & NO ONE DOES NOT EQUAL ONLY BAD GUYS ...as you so claim. Bad guys don't get to stay in their homes. Go watch the video again. This time with your ears and mind open. If you don't want to at least do that, do us all a favor and quit voting.

[comhcinc]

For the last and final time, you are wrong. I seriously wonder if this is why Democrats always vote for asinine laws. They never understand anything that's going on...

Direct quotes from the video you claim to have watched:

Narrator: "...entering houses with guns drawn and instructions to disarm anyone inside."
Reporter: "you say guns will be taken?"
Police Chief: "no one will be allowed to be armed, we will take all weapons."
Narrator: "...residents were handcuffed on the ground. In the end, police took their weapons and let them stay in their homes."

ANYONE & NO ONE DOES NOT EQUAL ONLY BAD GUYS ...as you so claim. Bad guys don't get to stay in their homes. Go watch the video again. This time with your ears and mind open. If you don't want to at least do that, do us all a favor and quit voting.

no i am right. see the police chief is an law enforcment officer, and he give everyone an order. you just quoted it yourself. ANYONE who doesn't do as told is breaking the law. it doesn't matter that you don't agree with the law.

here is another quote for the report:
PONYHAIRED LAWBREAKER "they were a little bit threaten because our weapons were bigger than their weapons"

once the homes were searched and the people were disarmed, they were no longer a threat. that's why they were allowed to stay at their homes. plus the fact that the jail was underwater might have something to do with it.

also they not being arrested doesn't help your "big evil govrnment" argument.

[crumbles]

no i am right. see the police chief is an law enforcment officer, and he give everyone an order. you just quoted it yourself. ANYONE who doesn't do as told is breaking the law. it doesn't matter that you don't agree with the law.

here is another quote for the report:
PONYHAIRED LAWBREAKER "they were a little bit threaten because our weapons were bigger than their weapons"

once the homes were searched and the people were disarmed, they were no longer a threat. that's why they were allowed to stay at their homes. plus the fact that the jail was underwater might have something to do with it.

also they not being arrested doesn't help your "big evil govrnment" argument.Wow, that is amazing that there are people like you out there. You aren't even able to grasp the point to even start to understand why this is a problem. I really feel sorry for you. I truly do.

[comhcinc]

Wow, that is amazing that there are people like you out there. You aren't even able to grasp the point to even start to understand why this is a problem. I really feel sorry for you. I truly do.
actually it's just the opposite. i have been in almost the same situration as the troops that were in new orleans. i understand that to make sure everyone is safe (the troops and civilians) people ( who may or may not have bad intent) can't be allowed to armed. even in their own homes ( which are perfect sniper nest) if you have even served your country you might have a better understanding of this

[phatlip12]

Regarding Katrina...

Wasn't martial law declared in the city which would allow for something like this to happen? I'm not saying I agree with it, just asking....

[rabidbadger]

first, a couple things about this thread.

Wow, I am so proud of you guys, other than a few wiseass snips, you are staying on topic and having real discussions, most of which are valid arguments. And wow, when I created this thread to divert the flames from the other thread I didn't expect the other thread to get abandoned! haha.

But Crumbles, even though I agree with several of your points, you really seem to be totally ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment. Why is that, honsetly?

[crumbles]

But Crumbles, even though I agree with several of your points, you really seem to be totally ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment. Why is that, honsetly?I haven't ignored it. I've answered it several times. Not only do I understand what they are referring to, so does the Supreme Court and Congress.
Regarding Katrina...

Wasn't martial law declared in the city which would allow for something like this to happen? I'm not saying I agree with it, just asking....No, martial law was never declared in New Orleans. In fact, Martial Law has all been barred from use anyway. The Katrina relief included military assistance, but it was never because of martial law.

[rabidbadger]

I haven't ignored it. I've answered it several times. Not only do I understand what they are referring to, so does the Supreme Court and Congress.


Oh, hogwash, you have never mentioned the regulated militia except to dismiss it. Your sole argument for gun ownership is for your own personal needs/wants, (yes, legal and valid, for the most part) but the founders didn't put it in the Bill of Rights so you could stop a bus bomber, that was/is a given. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And are thus incorporated into our freedoms, but the militia part is what was expressly stated in the Bill of Rights, using the people who already had the right to protect thier life and liberties.

[crumbles]

Oh, hogwash, you have never mentioned the regulated militia except to dismiss it.I dismissed it by explaining why I was dismissing it. I hate these stupid debates because no one ever bothers to read from page one. Plus, people just start spewing off ridiculous arguments such as "...they didn't intend for you to stop a bus bomber!" Oh, really. No shit. I never realized that before. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I guess I was wrong and my whole perception on the matter just crumbled to the ground. :rolleyes:

It's there so that the citizens have a way to protect their freedoms. It's not for specific situations. If you try to take away my freedom, I can fight back.

Referring to what you said about the pursuit of happiness, (and what I've posted before...) that was a human attempt to put words to those rights bestowed by Almighty God. The Bill of Rights grants nothing. It simply enumerates our human rights.

We are lucky enough to have a government that recognizes this, and has decided to uphold and protect those rights and unlucky enough to have the Democratic party trying to take this away from us. THIS is the job of a government, to protect our freedoms and liberties. Not to make sure that John Smith gets money out of my paycheck so he can go to the doctor.

The constitution does not give me my rights, it guarantees them. My rights, your rights... HUMAN rights are God-given.

[skyz]

We are lucky enough to have a government that recognizes this, and has decided to uphold and protect those rights.



it is hard for me to believe that anyone really believes that this government recognizes and has decided to uphold these rights

as far as these rights being GOD given if they are GOD given and GOD is the same all powerful GOD usually referred to as GOD then how in the world or out of this world could the democrats be any threat and why would we need guns to protect ourselves

human rights have nothing to do with GOD doing any giving - human rights are a human contract between the individual and the whole

[crumbles]

as far as these rights being GOD given if they are GOD given and GOD is the same all powerful GOD usually referred to as GOD then how in the world or out of this world could the democrats be any threat and why would we need guns to protect ourselves*sigh* ok, this is seriously my last post in this thread. I'm tired of repeating myself.

As I said..... that piece of paper is a dedication for our government to acknowledge, protect, and fight for our human rights. Democrats want to remove those protections by trying to give their "interpretations" of how the government should control its people. Democrats want the government to think for us instead of us thinking for ourselves.

The fact that everyone keeps asking either really stupid questions or the same questions over and over says one of two things. 1) I should be crying for the human race, or 2) I can't seem to get across a simple point which would make me start crying for the human race. Either way, I can't keep doing this over and over. And I sure as hell can't take your annoying font color and Haiku-ish mystery postings and others using the words "gish" and "detailed."

[skyz]

1) I should be crying for the human race, or 2) I can't seem to get across a simple point which would make me start crying for the human race. Either way, I can't keep doing this over and over. And I sure as hell can't take your annoying font color and Haiku-ish mystery postings and others using the words "gish" and "detailed."

amazing

you finally said something close to what seems to be your opinion of smart as personified by you

let me help you get really smart fast see if you can follow :D

my teal haikuesque style (i really love these insult compliments i really do to be labeled haiku esge is high praise to me) has nothing to do with anything

what has to do with anything is that being attracted to and being repulsive to as in repulsing are exactly the same thing

so YES YOU ARE RIGHT you should cry for the human race

but necessarily for the reasons you think

bodhisattvas cry for the human race by being joyful and peaceful

that is the best thing/way to be

you got it right but from the wrong angle

i am impressed

merry xmas

btw i'm done

say what you will

la di da

[comhcinc]

can we move past this?

for the sake of argument i will say the founder fathers thought everyone should be have a gun.

okay? who cares? i think they go that one wrong. to me the only way to solve this is to change the comstitution.

discuss

[skyz]

can we move past this?

for the sake of argument i will say the founder fathers thought everyone should be have a gun.

okay? who cares? i think they go that one wrong. to me the only way to solve this is to change the comstitution.

discuss


i am not into guns at all personally

i would not want to hang out around people with guns

but still i think the constitution holds

[comhcinc]

why? the constitution has been changed before.


on a completely different note the word 'constitution' contains the word tit (tits if you are dyslexic) :D

[Berrex]

why? the constitution has been changed before.


on a completely different note the word 'constitution' contains the word tit (tits if you are dyslexic) :D

Just because it has been changed before, and is possible to be changed, does not mean that we should disregard it, nor should we whip out our sharpies and go change-crazy. That's the worst thing we could possibly do. Remember that there is a good reason why it is so hard to amend the Constitution, and a good reason that it has only been amended 27 times since its inception. That's because these amendments were set in place to protect (or if you want to get technical, acknowledge, but this acknowledgement in turn offers protection) our rights as citizens. The Second Amendment helps to protect our rights to life and liberty. If you want more information on how I feel about this situation, refer to my previous post on (I believe) page 2. I really don't want to type it all up again. :P

[comhcinc]

The Second Amendment helps to protect our rights to life and liberty.
i don't believe it does. i think it allows for thousands of deaths a year. i don't really see how that is protecting life. as to your liberty once again i will say that your glock will not stop a tank much less a jet. so i don't see that either.

[Berrex]

i don't believe it does. i think it allows for more deaths per year that korea and vietnam combine. i don't really see how that is protecting life. as to your liberty once again i will say that your glock will not stop a tank much less a jet. so i don't see that either.
You didn't go back and read my first post before posting your argument. Do that first; I've debunked both of those arguments there, as well as explained why I feel it protects our rights to life and liberty.

[comhcinc]

You didn't go back and read my first post before posting your argument. Do that first; I've debunked both of those arguments there, as well as explained why I feel it protects our rights to life and liberty.

i did go back and read it. it doesn't debunked anything. you have your opinions, that's fine. but the facts remain:

In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths ? 11,624
(39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents;
and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were
killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.
For every firearm fatality in the United States in 2005, there were estimated to be more
than two non-fatal firearm injuries.

as for your idea that having a gun protects your liberty. again some one tell me how you plan on stoping a tank.

*alert* i misquoted some information in my last post i will go back and change it. sorry for that.

[Berrex]

Since you're still on the topic of "stopping a tank," I think you need to read my first post a little more carefully. I talked about that, and why it's irrelevant; I won't repost here, since I don't see a need to repeat myself.

As for your stats, would you mind posting your source? I'd like to take a look at it. And I'll post some stats of my own. :P

The following refers to the gun ban in Britain:
"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned ... in 1997. ...the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000."
Click for source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm)
The above source goes on to explain that of the 20 police areas with the lowest ratio of legally-owned firearms, 10 had an above-average gun crime level; of the 20 areas with the highest ratio of legally-owned firearms, only 2 had an above-average gun crime level. It also went on to explain how criminals were smuggling weapons into the country anyways; the laws target law-abiding citizens, not the criminals themselves who will have weapons no matter what. Again, from the article above:
"It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place."
FYI, the number of gun crimes for 2005-6 was 4,671 (source (http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece)), which indicates a constant rise since the gun ban. Furthermore, according to that same source, guns are being sold for dirt-cheap, which means that they're widely and readily available for anybody that wants to buy one illegally; i.e., the criminals that intend to use them for harm.

The situation in Britain has gotten so bad since the gun ban in Britain that its government even fears the clear rise of what they're calling the "gun culture." (source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/08/07/guns-usat.htm)). They estimate that approximately 250,000 weapons are currently circulating in Britain illegally; to put that into perspective, the gun ban saw only 162,000 firearms being turned in.

Britain isn't the only place where these trends have occurred. It also happened in Washington, D.C. After the 1976 gun ban, gun-related crime and murder rates increased pretty dramatically; my fingers are getting tired so I'll simply post the links and you can read through them if you so desire. The proof is here, and pretty clear:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1058884~D_C__gun_ban_gives_the_criminals_the_upper _hand.html?cid=all-hp-featured_editorial
http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/showthread.php?t=1869911579

Fortunately, the D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional (which it is) and was thrown out (source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html)).

I feel that's sufficient support for now. The fact of the matter is that if you put a ban into effect, it will only affect the law-abiding citizens and will have no affect on the criminals because the criminals are, well, criminals. They could care less if guns are illegal; they'll just go out and smuggle them, buy them in the black market, and use them against the now-defenseless citizens. Hence the obvious increase in crime and murder immediately following the gun bans of Britain and Washington, D.C. And this trend hasn't been leveling out in Britain, either. As you can see above, gun crimes are still increasing, despite the gun ban being over a decade old.

Now you see why I believe what I do. It's because it's supported by cold-hard fact. You can go and show me how many people die by guns each year, but that is quite frankly irrelevant. The only stats that matter are the ones that show a change. And the changes are consistently that banning guns leads to a decrease in the safety of your average citizen. This is why the Second Amendment is in place; this is why I say the Second Amendment protects our rights to life and liberty; this is why the Second Amendment needs to stay; this is why the gun ban of Washington, D.C. was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.

[comhcinc]

Since you're still on the topic of "stopping a tank," I think you need to read my first post a little more carefully. I talked about that, and why it's irrelevant; I won't repost here, since I don't see a need to repeat myself. if you won't i will:

I do understand that people with handguns going against a tank is unlikely. But honestly, if it escalates to that point, there is likely a full-scale revolution going on anyways, and the country would be divided into a couple (or a few) major factions, which would level the odds anyhow. It most likely wouldn't be 50,000 John Does up against the US Army. you are making a lot of leaps here. you are just assuming anarchy and i think you are skipping over a lot to happen. even with all of that you still fell to show how handguns protect liberty
As for your stats, would you mind posting your source? I'd like to take a look at it. And I'll post some stats of my own. :P those figures come from the CDC. i used the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence "Firearms Facts" factsheet that can be viewed here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/guns_domestic_violence.pdf). (it's a pdf file)

The following refers to the gun ban in Britain: those are some interesting stories. do you have any thing more recent? i don't think anyone believes that handgun crimes will disapper over night. i think it will take 20 to 30 years to remove handguns if a ban was put into play

Britain isn't the only place where these trends have occurred. It also happened in Washington, D.C. After the 1976 gun ban, gun-related crime and murder rates increased pretty dramatically....
murder rates increased dramatically all over the country in the same time frame. moreover i can understand how a gun ban that is only city wide won't work. not unless you walled the city and search every person going in. also i want it noted that i don't agree with the DC gun ban. i see nothing wrong with people have rifles and shotguns in their own homes

Fortunately, the D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional (which it is) and was thrown out (source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html)).but it's up for appeal. my favorite quote for that article is The Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment in 1939, but it did not hold that the right to bear arms meant specifically that a person could do so.

I feel that's sufficient support for now. The fact of the matter is that if you put a ban into effect, it will only affect the law-abiding citizens and will have no affect on the criminals because the criminals are, well, criminals. They could care less if guns are illegal; they'll just go out and smuggle them, buy them in the black market, and use them against the now-defenseless citizens. Hence the obvious increase in crime and murder immediately following the gun bans of Britain and Washington, D.C. And this trend hasn't been leveling out in Britain, either. As you can see above, gun crimes are still increasing, despite the gun ban being over a decade old.again i agree that "city wide" bans don't work. all your stories about britain are from 2001 and in fact are talking about the same study. again something newer would be nice.


Now you see why I believe what I do. It's because it's supported by cold-hard fact. You can go and show me how many people die by guns each year, but that is quite frankly irrelevant. The only stats that matter are the ones that show a change. And the changes are consistently that banning guns leads to a decrease in the safety of your average citizen.
again i disagree given that: In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States.(same source) i don't think change will happen over night, or even over a decade but i just really don't see the need for handguns

[Reoze]

Why not carry around a taser or pepper spray as opposed to a deadly firearm?

I'm going to be quite blunt with this one, If all people were allowed to carry around were tasers, I'd feel much more comfortable knowing that I could walk around ripping people off left and right. The sheer fact that people DO carry guns deter crimes from happening every single day. I believe hitler himself even claimed that attacking the US would be suicide from the standpoint that such a population so well armed would be overwhelming.

Even knowing that the chances of me having to use my weapon in self defense are closer to one in a million, it makes me feel safer and thats what *I* care about. I could care less what some guy thinks if he believes that carrying guns is wrong, or if joe shmoe knew I walked outside with a pistol every day for self defense. The fact of the matter is, violent crimes do happen quite commonly, so common in fact they're hardly even spoken of anymore. You don't hear about that guy who gets dragged behind his car and beaten to near death because he wants to rip off his wallet, What pains me if what you hear about even less than that is the guy who exercises his right to defend himself and defending himself from his would be attacker who thought it would be a smart idea to start assaulting and robbing people.

To sum it all up, yes I keep a gun with me, no I don't plan on using it in the near future, yes shit happens, no somtimes people have no way to prevent it, yes i'd rather have those means at my disposal.

Is there another form of rape I'm not aware of?
Statutory rape.

[AutoDas]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This means people should be able to make and buy anything to protect themselves. Be it ballistic missiles, tanks, or nukes. All equal to a Mutual Assured Destruction. When America completely repeals the Second Amendment is the day when we will be elapsed technology wise. The genie is already out of the bottle.

[rabidbadger]

I don't disagree, but like crubles, you totally skipping the first part of the sentence. Oddly enough the supreme court will be taking this up next session.

[damnedeyez]

Perhaps the sentence phrasing was intentional, so as to say that the people should be armed to keep the government run militias from getting out of hand.

[maxiscool1994]

Perhaps the sentence phrasing was intentional, so as to say that the people should be armed to keep the government run militias from getting out of hand.

The constitution was written to try to give this country a basic 'ten-commandment-like' structure for its legal system (besides Justinian's code...) and many of the amendments--especially II-- were written with just this intention. History says that governments tend to get a little bit overboard sometimes, and giving the citizen's a right to bear arms helps keep this illegal activity in check. This makes revolution a much easier option, so the government keeps this in mind when it makes some of it's more 'risque' (sorry, no accent) laws.

Governing a nation of free people is just a balancing act: the government and the citizens need to keep each other from being unreasonable. Once this balance is marred, our country's foundation is erased.

[rabidbadger]

The constitution was written to try to give this country a basic 'ten-commandment-like' structure for its legal system (besides Justinian's code...) and many of the amendments--especially II-- were written with just this intention. History says that governments tend to get a little bit overboard sometimes, and giving the citizen's a right to bear arms helps keep this illegal activity in check. This makes revolution a much easier option, so the government keeps this in mind when it makes some of it's more 'risque' (sorry, no accent) laws.

Governing a nation of free people is just a balancing act: the government and the citizens need to keep each other from being unreasonable. Once this balance is marred, our country's foundation is erased.

good point, but the gov has nukes, we have little balls of lead.

[phatlip12]

I'm going to be quite blunt with this one, If all people were allowed to carry around were tasers, I'd feel much more comfortable knowing that I could walk around ripping people off left and right. The sheer fact that people DO carry guns deter crimes from happening every single day. I believe hitler himself even claimed that attacking the US would be suicide from the standpoint that such a population so well armed would be overwhelming.

Even knowing that the chances of me having to use my weapon in self defense are closer to one in a million, it makes me feel safer and thats what *I* care about. I could care less what some guy thinks if he believes that carrying guns is wrong, or if joe shmoe knew I walked outside with a pistol every day for self defense. The fact of the matter is, violent crimes do happen quite commonly, so common in fact they're hardly even spoken of anymore. You don't hear about that guy who gets dragged behind his car and beaten to near death because he wants to rip off his wallet, What pains me if what you hear about even less than that is the guy who exercises his right to defend himself and defending himself from his would be attacker who thought it would be a smart idea to start assaulting and robbing people.

To sum it all up, yes I keep a gun with me, no I don't plan on using it in the near future, yes shit happens, no somtimes people have no way to prevent it, yes i'd rather have those means at my disposal.


Statutory rape.

You didn't answer the question though. Whats wrong with carrying a taser as opposed to a deadly firearm?

[rabidbadger]

love ya man, but distance is an issue.

[maxiscool1994]

good point, but the gov has nukes, we have little balls of lead.

That is true...but we have ...'the internets!' I think collectively we could hack the US computer system faster than the gov't could react.

[scienceking]

I don't think the fact that people only have "balls of lead" matters. Soviet Generals are on record that the main reason any sort of an invasion of the US was never taken seriously as a viable option was not because of the US Armed Forces, which was seen as beatable under the right circumstances. Instead, the view of being sniped to death as soldiers actually tried to take ground was seen as an impossible concern in any operations in the US. A well armed general population yields an almost invincible national security, as it requires the literal annihilation of the country as the price of invasion, which ruins any chance of real gains from the operation.

The same sort of effect occurs between the government and the people. The only key differentiator is for the population to act at least to a degree unilaterally to respond to the government when its behavior is considered out of hand in a way that cannot be resolved through diplomacy. Basically, the only reason its harder for your own government is the population needs to identify when the "government" moves from being a recognized sovereign power to being an enemy occupier, and this is not trivial especially in a country when the same government line of run has gone unquestioned in at least the non-confederate states since their initial joining of the Union.

Its even harder for America right now because the high standard of living makes families uncomfortable with the idea of causing any sort of a disruption in the economy. Indeed, this is a historical reason that actually dates back to the initial American Revolution is is probably why that movement proceeded so slowly! (British colonists in the Americas enjoyed much higher standards of living then their colleagues in Britain, and so many of even the greatest opponents of recent Imperial policy toward the colonies resisted the idea of independence because it seemed rather crazy to complain about even valid blemishes in this light)

...but after this long winded summary, what I guess i mean to say is that the second amendment is more than enough for a defense against the government, its just a matter of having people educated enough and willing to use it when the time comes...and media censorship and increasingly unconstitutional branding of speech as illegal and bordering on thoughtcrime accusations associated with this witch hunt on terror could make this latter requirement impossible.

Oh, and in reference to guns being useless in self defense or crime prevention:
I dare anyone here to even try to steal something worthless from a ranch in the heart of Texas. I'd love to here back from you on how it went.

[Reoze]

You didn't answer the question though. Whats wrong with carrying a taser as opposed to a deadly firearm?

Well they're less lethal, don't have as much of a range, their "knockdown" is questionable, and in all honesty nobody is going to be afraid of a population walking around with tasers.

good point, but the gov has nukes, we have little balls of lead.

First of all militia works both ways, this ties in to the "castle law" that a militia is

The term Militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary [1] citizens to provide defense, emergency, law enforcement, or paramilitary service, and those engaged in such activity, without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service

Now this goes back to my first post about hitler. A militia's job is to stand up and fight regardless of who his attackers were, meaning if casto decides to start sailing his army into miami it would be your RIGHT to defend yourself in such a situation.

Now we'll go to the other side of the coin, What most of you people are thinking of. The next revolutionary war, Well lets get this point of view over with and done. The US will never nuke it's citizens, it would never drive tanks around the streets trying to kill it's citizens, and it sure as hell wouldn't ever come to full scale war anytime soon.


So what is a regulated mililtia really? Because by definition it's a group of guys who are prepared to use their weapons to preserve their human and constitutional rights regardless of the attacker. If that is some guy walking in my front door who would hurt my family or myself, I'd exercise that right just as much as if it were castro himself walking down the street.

[maxiscool1994]

Oh, and in reference to guns being useless in self defense or crime prevention:
I dare anyone here to even try to steal something worthless from a ranch in the heart of Texas. I'd love to here back from you on how it went.

Totally right. My uncle teaches a hand gun self- defense course, and even after only a few hours of training, people are fully able to stop a criminal in their homes. The people in texas are a bit different, though: they just shoot crap!

[AutoDas]

I don't disagree, but like crubles, you totally skipping the first part of the sentence. Oddly enough the supreme court will be taking this up next session.

Was that post for me? If it was, then I think the well regulated militia would be the people since they have the tanks:p

[comhcinc]

I don't think the fact that people only have "balls of lead" matters. Soviet Generals are on record that the main reason any sort of an invasion of the US was never taken seriously as a viable option was not because of the US Armed Forces, which was seen as beatable under the right circumstances.

could you show source on that please?

[comhcinc]

United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service), with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm is ever sold. This was widely interpreted as a prohibitive measure, as the $200 tax was levied upon items which at the time were relatively common and typically cost less than ten dollars. The United States Department of the Treasury nonetheless claimed that it was a revenue-collecting measure.

Jack Miller and Frank Layton were suspected bank robbers and moon shiners being watched by agents of the Department of the Treasury. On April 18, 1938 Miller and Layton were arrested for transporting an unlicensed sawed-off shotgun (defined as "having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length") across state lines while engaged in interstate commerce, in violation of the NFA.

This was a federal case and was therefore heard by the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. On January 3, 1939, U.S. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed with the defense's claim that the NFA was intended to restrict the individual ownership and possession of arms, in conflict with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The defendant's argument at the trial court was reported (in the text of the Supreme Court opinion) to be as follows:
The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

The trial court agreed, ruling that section 11 of the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. The trial court threw out the indictment. The United States Attorney, Clinton R. Barry, appealed to the Supreme court.

On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)

discuss.

[rabidbadger]

Was that post for me? If it was, then I think the well regulated militia would be the people since they have the tanks:p

we do?

34572

[kowgod]

I abhor guns. I distrust anyone who feels it necessary to keep guns. As an outdoorsman, I can respect the use of guns in hunting, to an extent, but my complete and utter distaste for guns usually overpowers that sense of respect.

An outdated law might give you the right to keep a weapon, but I will always have the right to dislike you for doing so.

[AutoDas]

we do?

34572

Read. my. post.

I said the citizen should be allowed to have tanks.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[AutoDas]

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)

discuss.

The St. Valentine's Massacre was gang related. These gangs popped up during prohibition and moved to cocaine once the 18th Amendment was repealed. This is what happens when people can't turn to the police for help, they take matters into their own hands.

[masherscf]

Is there another form of rape I'm not aware of?

Examples,

Consensual sex with an underage partner.

Sexual intercourse with a partner who is too impaired to give legal consent.

Sexual intercourse that was coerced in a non-violent manner.

[comhcinc]

The St. Valentine's Massacre was gang related. These gangs popped up during prohibition and moved to cocaine once the 18th Amendment was repealed. This is what happens when people can't turn to the police for help, they take matters into their own hands.

okay, but U.S. vs. Miller isn't about the St. Valentine's Massacre. try reading more than the first couple of sentances before posting. otherwise you look foolish and your post make no sense. case in point above.

[Reoze]

I abhor guns. I distrust anyone who feels it necessary to keep guns. As an outdoorsman, I can respect the use of guns in hunting, to an extent, but my complete and utter distaste for guns usually overpowers that sense of respect.

An outdated law might give you the right to keep a weapon, but I will always have the right to dislike you for doing so.

With approximately 275 thousand guns in the united states compared to the 280 thousand people living in the US according to our 2007 census you definitely will not get far in this world with such narrow minded views. Frankly I've heard quite a few reasons for "disliking" a mass group of people, such as racists, etc. but the fact that you dislike anyone who owns a firearm is not going to help your case at all.

[AutoDas]

okay, but U.S. vs. Miller isn't about the St. Valentine's Massacre. try reading more than the first couple of sentances before posting. otherwise you look foolish and your post make no sense. case in point above.

umm k whatev

How about posting an explanation of what you want to discuss besides "Discuss" moron

[comhcinc]

With approximately 275 thousand guns in the united states compared to the 280 thousand people living in the US according to our 2007 census you definitely will not get far in this world with such narrow minded views. Frankly I've heard quite a few reasons for "disliking" a mass group of people, such as racists, etc. but the fact that you dislike anyone who owns a firearm is not going to help your case at all.

none of your numbers make any sense.

Real Numb3rs

• There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. - 65 million of
which are handguns.
• Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.
• In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of
which were handguns. Additionally, it is estimated that 1 to 3 million guns change
hands in the secondary market each year, and many of these sales are not regulated.

[comhcinc]

umm k whatev

How about posting an explanation of what you want to discuss besides "Discuss" moron

well following your logic we could discuss 1939 or guys name Miller or the NFA, but since this thread is about the 2nd Amendment and the article is about the 2nd Amendment as well. lets discuss the surprme court decision on the 2nd Amendment. sorry i forgot that some people can't make easy logic connections.

[masherscf]

umm k whatev

How about posting an explanation of what you want to discuss besides "Discuss" moron

Please read the rules of conduct (http://www.revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=703) before posting again.

[tokenuser]

With approximately 275 thousand guns in the united states compared to the 280 thousand people living in the US according to our 2007 census you definitely will not get far in this world with such narrow minded views. Frankly I've heard quite a few reasons for "disliking" a mass group of people, such as racists, etc. but the fact that you dislike anyone who owns a firearm is not going to help your case at all.Pssst .... Reoze ... yeah you, paranoid "government is trying to rule our world and we need guns to protect ourselves from the 'bad guys'" type guy ... US Population is 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.). That means that less than 1 in 1000 people own a gun (provided your gun estimate is more accurate than your populatio estimate).

[crumbles]

... paranoid "government is trying to rule our world and we need guns to protect ourselves from the 'bad guys'" type guy ...Why stop there? What are the odds the government will infringe on our freedom of speech? Let's get rid of that one too! Hell, let's get rid of them all since it's apparently a document of paranoia! What could possibly happen!

[skyz]

why?

laws have to fit the way people are

with some movement toward the more ethical evolved position

people are violent people confront each other violently

changing the law is not going to change people into a nation of ghandis or a nation devoted to non violence

that is way outside the power of the law

you can't legislate people to be their best selves

you can only institute laws which prevent people from being their absolute worst selves

the II amendment imho works well for now as it worked well for then

[NJShadow]

Here's my take on it. One of the ideas that this country was founded on was the idea that all human beings have three unalienable rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. This is why the Second Amendment exists. Armament allows us to defend ourselves when it is needed; hence, we get to keep our right to live when that right is being abridged upon or threatened. It allows us to organize in militias. It puts power into the hands of the people to keep the state in line (which is why it states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"). If the government becomes too oppressive, a militia and the right to armament allows us to take any action necessary; violent action, even, if it is needed to change and/or overthrow the government to better suit the needs of the people. For this reason, I believe that the suggestion that weapons be banned, taken from us, is an unacceptable proposition. It denies our right to protect ourselves, and diminishes our ability to protect our right to life and liberty. I do understand that people with handguns going against a tank is unlikely. But honestly, if it escalates to that point, there is likely a full-scale revolution going on anyways, and the country would be divided into a couple (or a few) major factions, which would level the odds anyhow. It most likely wouldn't be 50,000 John Does up against the US Army. I think that a more likely situation of citizens using guns to take action against government tyranny is in the instance of police brutality. Tasers, anybody? So far in these cases nobody could do anything but stand by and watch the victim/suspect/whatever you wish to call him getting tased, unless they wanted to be tased and arrested themselves, because of the fact that they simply had no means to do anything. That's scary.

Now on the topic of concealed weapons. I think we should be able to carry our weapons in any manner we wish. If we don't want people to see that we're armed, we can conceal them. If we feel safer with our weapons exposed (as a kind of "don't mess with me" sentiment; some people prefer the weapon of intimidation over anything else), then we should be allowed to do that as well. Ultimately, let us decide for ourselves.

Now I know some people have a problem with everybody being armed, especially in public. But what kind of idiot would try to rob a bank or mug somebody when he/she knows that there is a possibility that there are several armed individuals in the immediate area that can take him/her down in the blink of an eye? Chances are, they'll be intimidated enough to back down and avoid committing the crime. Even if this is not the case, the victims will at least have a means to defend themselves. Why on earth should we take that away from them? That's just wrong, in my opinion. Now an idea has been brought up about being armed with tasers. If people want to do that, all the more power to them. I'm all for it. However, we should still be allowed to use our weapon of choice. Case in point, if a gunman is 100 feet from you and firing at you, and all you have is a taser, you can't do a darn thing, and you're basically screwed until he runs out of ammo. If you have a gun, the odds are evened, and the gunman will actually have something to be worried about.

Ultimately, we need to stick to the Constitution. It's there for our benefit; let's not diminish it, please. That's been GW's job these last 7 years.

Wow, I agree. Well said.

[Reoze]

Pssst .... Reoze ... yeah you, paranoid "government is trying to rule our world and we need guns to protect ourselves from the 'bad guys'" type guy ... US Population is 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.). That means that less than 1 in 1000 people own a gun (provided your gun estimate is more accurate than your populatio estimate).

Thousand was quite obviously a typo, 275 MILLION. To be quite honest I have no fear of western civilization melting down whatsoever, I have much more fun going to the range and shooting a paper target than ever having to even think of shooting a person.

[tokenuser]

Thousand was quite obviously a typo, 275 MILLION. To be quite honest I have no fear of western civilization melting down whatsoever, I have much more fun going to the range and shooting a paper target than ever having to even think of shooting a person.Yeah ... paper targets are great ... they don't shoot back.

[NJShadow]

laws have to fit the way people are

with some movement toward the more ethical evolved position

people are violent people confront each other violently

changing the law is not going to change people into a nation of ghandis or a nation devoted to non violence

that is way outside the power of the law

you can't legislate people to be their best selves

you can only institute laws which prevent people from being their absolute worst selves

the II amendment imho works well for now as it worked well for then



Wow, yet another great point.

[crumbles]

Yeah ... paper targets are great ... they don't shoot back.If only criminals didn't either...

[crumbles]

I personally think polls are totally worthless, but I saw this on USAToday this morning and found it funny and relevant to this thread.

[tokenuser]

http://www.inkcinct.com.au/Web/CARTOONS/2007/2007-230-right-to-bear-arms.jpg

[maxiscool1994]

http://www.inkcinct.com.au/Web/CARTOONS/2007/2007-230-right-to-bear-arms.jpg

Thats very true...people have learned how to take advantage of our constitution.

[crumbles]

...guns should only be given to criminals, not law abiding citizens!Bill of Rights (Liberal Version)

Amendment I
There shall be no show of respect for any Christian religion, or people who believe in a Christian religion, or Christian-based holidays, and no one who professes belief in any Christian religion shall be considered fit for any government position or office. No law shall abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people, peaceably or otherwise, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, unless that speech, that press or those people are in support the actions of Republicans, or in condemnation of the actions of Democrats, or might be construed as giving offense to anyone.

Amendment II
The military and police being the only forces necessary to the security of the State, the right of the common people to keep and bear arms shall be removed, weighed down with restrictions and regulations until private citizens can no longer own anything that might be used as a weapon.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be regarded as necessary to maintaining that peace. When at home, soldiers of any rank are to be considered disposable, interchangeable, dull-witted robots, who can be instantly trained at need, and considered dangerous, uncontrollable, dull-witted barbarians bent on murder, rapine and torture when overseas. As a group, American soldiers are to be lauded and pitied, but individually, reviled.

Amendment IV
The right of all people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against any searches and seizures shall not be violated without a court-ordered warrant, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by the kind of evidence of wrongdoing that could only be gathered with a warrant, and the warrant must precisely describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Personal security shall be considered inviolable for American citizens, foreigners living in America, and foreigners living elsewhere.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, because crimes are the fault of society, and not the individual. Republicans and Conservatives, on the other hand, shall be deemed guilty upon indictment by a grand jury, or even upon accusation of wrongdoing. No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, unless that person show evidence of Conservative thinking. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, unless that person shall be unborn or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise be deemed useless to the State, or a burden. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, public use being defined as anything that might benefit the State in some way, including higher tax revenue from said property.

Amendment VI
In all prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial in the media, and later, if necessary, by jury. Guilt shall be determined by the extent of public outcry that can be created over the nature of the crime, but reduced by the level of celebrity status enjoyed by the accused. The word of anonymous witnesses and experts may be used as evidence in the media trial. If a person found guilty of a crime is able to claim disadvantaged status -- meaning non-white, non-Christian, non-male, poor or homosexual -- that person shall have the right to full and open public sympathy by celebrities and members of the media, unless that person happens to be Conservative or Republican, both of which are forbidden to members of disadvantaged groups.

Amendment VII
The right of trial by jury shall be preserved for captured opponents during time of war, who shall be accorded all the rights and benefits of American citizens in addition to the disadvantaged person status, which shall automatically be granted to all "enemies" of America.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, not even curtailment of any freedoms or rights whatsoever. Those held for committing a crime shall be afforded luxuries in entertainment and food to make up for the injustice of being incarcerated, as well as the right to at least one book deal.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, especially the unquestionable rights of abortion, tax-paid health care and gay marriage.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the Judiciary, who shall have the power to overturn decisions made by vote of the people, amend the Constitution and even change the meaning of the words written herein at will and without recourse by the people.

[phatlip12]

Bill of Rights (Liberal Version)

Amendment I
There shall be no show of respect for any Christian religion, or people who believe in a Christian religion, or Christian-based holidays, and no one who professes belief in any Christian religion shall be considered fit for any government position or office. No law shall abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people, peaceably or otherwise, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, unless that speech, that press or those people are in support the actions of Republicans, or in condemnation of the actions of Democrats, or might be construed as giving offense to anyone.

Amendment II
The military and police being the only forces necessary to the security of the State, the right of the common people to keep and bear arms shall be removed, weighed down with restrictions and regulations until private citizens can no longer own anything that might be used as a weapon.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be regarded as necessary to maintaining that peace. When at home, soldiers of any rank are to be considered disposable, interchangeable, dull-witted robots, who can be instantly trained at need, and considered dangerous, uncontrollable, dull-witted barbarians bent on murder, rapine and torture when overseas. As a group, American soldiers are to be lauded and pitied, but individually, reviled.

Amendment IV
The right of all people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against any searches and seizures shall not be violated without a court-ordered warrant, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by the kind of evidence of wrongdoing that could only be gathered with a warrant, and the warrant must precisely describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Personal security shall be considered inviolable for American citizens, foreigners living in America, and foreigners living elsewhere.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, because crimes are the fault of society, and not the individual. Republicans and Conservatives, on the other hand, shall be deemed guilty upon indictment by a grand jury, or even upon accusation of wrongdoing. No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, unless that person show evidence of Conservative thinking. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, unless that person shall be unborn or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise be deemed useless to the State, or a burden. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, public use being defined as anything that might benefit the State in some way, including higher tax revenue from said property.

Amendment VI
In all prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial in the media, and later, if necessary, by jury. Guilt shall be determined by the extent of public outcry that can be created over the nature of the crime, but reduced by the level of celebrity status enjoyed by the accused. The word of anonymous witnesses and experts may be used as evidence in the media trial. If a person found guilty of a crime is able to claim disadvantaged status -- meaning non-white, non-Christian, non-male, poor or homosexual -- that person shall have the right to full and open public sympathy by celebrities and members of the media, unless that person happens to be Conservative or Republican, both of which are forbidden to members of disadvantaged groups.

Amendment VII
The right of trial by jury shall be preserved for captured opponents during time of war, who shall be accorded all the rights and benefits of American citizens in addition to the disadvantaged person status, which shall automatically be granted to all "enemies" of America.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, not even curtailment of any freedoms or rights whatsoever. Those held for committing a crime shall be afforded luxuries in entertainment and food to make up for the injustice of being incarcerated, as well as the right to at least one book deal.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, especially the unquestionable rights of abortion, tax-paid health care and gay marriage.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the Judiciary, who shall have the power to overturn decisions made by vote of the people, amend the Constitution and even change the meaning of the words written herein at will and without recourse by the people.

The Republicans version of the Bill of Rights consists of every single amendment crossed out (except quartering of troops, safe from that) with random graffiti written all over it:

"It's a god damn piece of paper!"
"We have to do it to make America safe from the evil dooers"
"Take it from my cold dead hands"
"**** habeas corpus!"
"Gays are EVIL!"
"Nuke Iran!"

;) ;)

[crumbles]

The Republicans version of the Bill of Rights consists of every single amendment crossed out (except quartering of troops, safe from that) with random graffiti written all over it:

"It's a god damn piece of paper!"
"We have to do it to make America safe from the evil dooers"
"Take it from my cold dead hands"
"**** habeas corpus!"
"Gays are EVIL!"
"Nuke Iran!"

;) ;)
lol, did you have to quote my entire post!

[Reoze]

Yeah ... paper targets are great ... they don't shoot back.

It's also a sport, such as baseball, skiing, or football. I get a sense of personal satisfaction in being able to hit a soda can at 200 yards. Most people get the idea that gun owners own guns for one reason, to shoot and kill other human beings. Most of them in fact own guns to have fun at a range or hunting and if the time came where they had to use them in self defense they'd feel better about having them around. There are very few people who own guns with the sole intent on protecting themselves, otherwise they would not own a gun due to the fact that it'd be a $300-3000 paperweight.

[masherscf]

You didn't answer the question though. Whats wrong with carrying a taser as opposed to a deadly firearm?

There's a couple of issues here.

A taser has a limited range and single shot.

A taser is deadly in some situations. Therefore, as a private citizen, I can only use a taser when you can justify deadly force.

If my family and I are being threatened in a manner that justifies that kind of force, I won't be worried about being humane. I'm going to remove the threat with deadly force. If I can't shoot someone dead, I don't think I can justify even merely tasering them.

I hate to quote G. Gorden Liddy, but, If you have to shoot someone, you have to justify killing them. So, if you have to shoot someone, kill them.

Mind you, I'm not politically conservative and could even be described as a pacifist. I do think killing is a sin and I would never look for the opportunity to kill someone. I have family in the police and military but I have no desire to join the military or police. I suppose I would serve in the military if I was called. But, given my age and qualifications, I doubt I would ever see combat.

I stopped carrying a handgun years ago. Because, I felt that it didn't enhance my personal safety or the safety or those around me.

However, if someone invades my home, They'll be carried out in a bag.

[skyz]

i don't think that all democrats are pacifists nor do i think that all republicans are not pacificists

making or implying such sweeping generalizations is foolish and narrow minded

[masherscf]

making or implying such sweeping generalizations is foolish and narrow minded



Being foolish and narrow minded is my forte'. So, here go the sweeping generalizations.

Every proper Christian and every intelligent soldier are pacifists. The former because they understand Christ's direct instructions for how humans should relate to each other, the latter because they would rather be at home with their families watching football than really being shot at.

[rabidbadger]

(historical) Jesus was a friggen radical. But he lost his temper on occasion. (money changers).

[NJShadow]

(historical) Jesus was a friggen radical. But he lost his temper on occasion. (money changers).

I hope you realize that anger is not a sin and losing your temper is not a sin just as long as you don't actually sin in the process. He threw over the money-changer's tables because they were gambling in the temple. Although I can see why others would see that as a sin. Oh, and since when has Jesus ever been seen as a radical!?

EDIT - Please, that was just a little tid-bit so please try and stay on topic.....

[rabidbadger]

(historical) Jesus was a friggen radical. But he lost his temper on occasion. (money changers).

[masherscf]

I hope you realize that anger is not a sin and losing your temper is not a sin just as long as you don't actually sin in the process. He threw over the money-changer's tables because they were gambling in the temple. Although I can see why others would see that as a sin. Oh, and since when has Jesus ever been seen as a radical!?

EDIT - Please, that was just a little tid-bit so please try and stay on topic.....

The Romans executed Jesus for being a radical.

Also, the money changers...Gambling...is that what they're teaching you?

I think it's pretty funny that someone would make that up to support an agenda against gambling with a biblical citation.

You'll notice that the Gospel according to John does not mention gambling.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%202:12-2:25&version=50

The other gospels do not dispute that. Jesus overturns the money-changers for carrying out they're business of money changing. That-is, outside money was look upon as unclean so the money changers exchanged the outside money for clean temple money for given fee. It was the monetary raping of faithful people by the temple that pissed Jesus off. It pisses me off too.

[NJShadow]

The Romans executed Jesus for being a radical.

Also, the money changers...Gambling...is that what they're teaching you?

I think it's pretty funny that someone would make that up to support an agenda against gambling with a biblical citation.

You'll notice that the Gospel according to John does not mention gambling.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%202:12-2:25&version=50

The other gospels do not dispute that. Jesus overturns the money-changers for carrying out they're business of money changing. That-is, outside money was look upon as unclean so the money changers exchanged the outside money for clean temple money for given fee. It was the monetary raping of faithful people by the temple that pissed Jesus off. It pisses me off too.

(Concerning the gambling) Oops, your absolutely right. I kinda shot that one off without thinking or taking the time to review what I previously studied. My fault......:eek:

EDIT - And trust me, that's not what their teaching me. That was MY error.

[masherscf]

(Concerning the gambling) Oops, your absolutely right. I kinda shot that one off without thinking or taking the time to review what I previously studied. My fault......:eek:

EDIT - And trust me, that's not what their teaching me. That was MY error.

Dude, you gave me a Sunday school flashback...

[skyz]

I hope you realize that anger is not a sin and losing your temper is not a sin just as long as you don't actually sin in the process.


anger is poison in buddhism

in buddhism there is no savior erasing your karma (dying for your sins) you have to do it yourself but the fact that you can do it yourself is a blessing

there is much more effort and much less faith involved

what you are seeking in buddhism is the exact ease of mind that jesus referred to as 'the peace that surpasses all understanding'

the first step in the right direction is when your anger does not lead to ugly actions but after a while your practice becomes more refined and the very appearance of anger in your mind is enough to let you know you are not thinking right

you have to remove the subtlest seeds of anger - it is quite a challenge

So what does Buddhism teach us about anger? First and foremost, it is seen as a destructive emotion, one that leads to one's own suffering but also the suffering of others.

The Buddha urged his followers to 'give up anger', to 'conquer anger with love, to 'speak not harshly to anyone'. This does not mean that one shouldn't be able to express how one feels but if it is done with anger then it is unlikely that anything productive will come of it. What anger breeds is fear, anxiety, and underlying resentment. How often have we been carried away by our anger, regretting it later, and feeling that we have gone too far or we have done more harm than good?

It is inevitable that we will often feel injured and hurt by what others say or do to us. The Buddha said that nobody is above praise or blame. There are a number of ways we can react to the feeling of anger when it rises up within us. One is to retaliate - which for Buddhism would not be seen as very productive. Two, we could express our feelings but try to do it in a calm and reasoned way, speaking truthfully and honestly. The third option might be that speaking openly and honestly will still not resolve the situation, or could make it worse. If this is the case we must not let the anger ferment, grow and develop. We mustn't let it gnaw away at us, making us bitter and twisted. Here, it is important to 'let go'. Basically, place the emotions surrounding one's anger in a little box and - mentally - throw it away. Don't allow the mind to dwell on it. Although Buddhism urges restraint with regard to anger, it doesn't see that the suppression of it is productive either.

when anger appears in my mind i talk to it and tell it to go away and eventually it does

[skyz]

and of course ahimsa or non harming is the basis of buddhism

there is most likely no religion or practice that is a pacifistic as buddhism which is most probably why einstein saw it as the hope of the future

a buddhist monk will do everything he can to avoid stepping on a bug

the dalai lama though full of concern for his people persecuted in tibet holds no anger for the chinese doing the persecuting

[phatlip12]

There's a couple of issues here.

A taser has a limited range and single shot.

A taser is deadly in some situations. Therefore, as a private citizen, I can only use a taser when you can justify deadly force.

If my family and I are being threatened in a manner that justifies that kind of force, I won't be worried about being humane. I'm going to remove the threat with deadly force. If I can't shoot someone dead, I don't think I can justify even merely tasering them.

I hate to quote G. Gorden Liddy, but, If you have to shoot someone, you have to justify killing them. So, if you have to shoot someone, kill them.

Mind you, I'm not politically conservative and could even be described as a pacifist. I do think killing is a sin and I would never look for the opportunity to kill someone. I have family in the police and military but I have no desire to join the military or police. I suppose I would serve in the military if I was called. But, given my age and qualifications, I doubt I would ever see combat.

I stopped carrying a handgun years ago. Because, I felt that it didn't enhance my personal safety or the safety or those around me.

However, if someone invades my home, They'll be carried out in a bag.

The thing is, there's almost always something more you can do to keep yourself safe. The question is, is it really necessary? Take driving a car for example. Surly it's safe (and smart) to wear a seat belt. Now, I'm sure I'd also be safer if I installed a roll cage, wore a helmet and mouth guard every time I drove to school, but is that really necessary? The only difference between that and carrying a handgun is carrying a handgun puts others lives in danger. Take crumbles for example. He carries yet he said he would shoot to kill if assaulted.

As far as the limited range of a taser....

Some tasers can now hit a target up to 150 meters away. That's good enough. No need to be the guy driving down the road with a helmet on or the guy that walks around in a rubber suite to prevent getting struck by lightening.

And yes, there have been cases where a taser has killed however it's still considered to be a non lethal weapon. Your alot more likely to be 6 foot underground when a gun is pointed at your chest then a taser.

[masherscf]

And yes, there have been cases where a taser has killed however it's still considered to be a non lethal weapon. Your alot more likely to be 6 foot underground when a gun is pointed at your chest then a taser.

I think you missed my point. I realize that the taser is designed to be non-lethal and that operating under normal circumstances it usually is. That still doesn't mean you can use it indiscriminately without legal repercussions. The police use batons, pepper spray, tasers and handguns. They are trained in the proper rules of engagement and are usually protected legally as long as they follow established procedural guidelines.

A private citizen does not enjoy the protected legal status of a police officer or soldier in combat when it comes to the use of force. My thought is that any circumstance that clearly justifies the use of a taser probably also justifies the use of lethal force. Therefore, it is irresponsible not to use the maximum level of force available.

[Berrex]

If you must harm another human being in order to defend yourself, you must be willing to end that person's life. It is entirely possible (and it has happened before) for an assailant to enter your home or attack you, and you cause harm to him to defend yourself, and the assailant takes you to court and wins. As absolutely ridiculous as this is, it is possible. Don't think that you're safe from legal repercussions by using a taser because it's "non-lethal." It still causes harm.

[NJShadow]

If you must harm another human being in order to defend yourself, you must be willing to end that person's life. It is entirely possible (and it has happened before) for an assailant to enter your home or attack you, and you cause harm to him to defend yourself, and the assailant takes you to court and wins. As absolutely ridiculous as this is, it is possible. Don't think that you're safe from legal repercussions by using a taser because it's "non-lethal." It still causes harm.

Yeah, that really CAN happen and it did. I heard a couple years ago that a burglar sued a family because when he broke into their home he tripped over something in their house and injured his leg. Sounds stupid, yeah I know, but it was something to that extent and it really did happen.

[bigstupid]

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

Okay.... now, on to the real deal.

The National Guard are recruited by the State, yet armed and equipped by the Federal government.

Strike one (and pretty damning in general).

The Militia Act of 1903 which further diminished the rights of the state and the individual.

Strike two

The Militia Act of 1792 - Providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia, and providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

Good

The Militia Act of 1903 - Affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.

Bad - First part of post (not the only bad part, just the easiest to identify with currently)

The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 - Made the National Guard a component of the Army.

Bad - because it further marginalizes the intent of the Second Amendment, through previous militia acts and what they contain.

John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 - Federal law was changed so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent. In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.


Holy crap... really bad... bad.... fire bad....

The people that represent 'we the people', are doing us a disservice at almost every level and we can only blame ourselves. Because, we allow it.

Everyone wants to chime with their arguments... But, nothing gets done.

Paraphrasing stuff to show how lame stuff is:

"I was in the army, I know what's going on. Listen to me." (I'll listen, but that doesn't mean it makes sense)

"I'm in law enforcement, we know what's best. Listen to us." (Yeah... this is actually kind of scary)

"I've never even been attacked by a flu virus, we don't need people carrying gun." (Yeah... well... good luck with that)

"I want to interpret constitutional law, the way I think it should be, because I'm better than you at it or something." (No)

"Things are never going to be that bad, so why worry about something that most likely will never happen?" (Are you for real? Is this how you live your life?)

"If we stopped allowing people to have guns, things would magically be better." (No, but, only because I would still have rocks to throw at your head)

"Even if things get that bad, it's not like we can do anything." (We can and must do everything in our power to stop oppression and tyranny... deal with it)

"If everyone had guns, they would shoot other people for fun and profit." (hell, I know if I have a gun, I automatically shoot someone, just for shits and giggles)

"The government knows best." (yes... one of us.... one of us....)

"For your own protection, we need to take these things and rights form you... hey, maybe it will only be a suspension... don't sweat it, it's cool bro." (Yeah, don't taze me bro)

"I can't handle such responsibility, so neither can, nor should, you." (I can't help that you're irresponsibles and paranoid)

"Blah, blah, blah, I'm right, because you can't see how you are so wrong. I'm more enlightened than you, because I advocate more control and you advocate some kind of horrible anarchy that will spread throughout all of mankind like viral marketing or some crap." (Yeah, it's called liberty... it tends to be infectious.)

At least I know, that when the zombie hordes come, I'll be ready with a shotgun in one hand and a sharpened shovel in the other....

Me for president, not because I'm more qualified, but because I actually believe in America and not the UN.

Oh snap, now I'm an isolationist because I believe in my country.

And now... let the stoning commence... star date 12534.4 ... Today, a big piece of the ship fell off.... and nobody likes me.

[crumbles]

Well, I think that 14 (now 15!) pages proves that the amendment was written flawlessly and not at all vague or non-specific!

I don't know how many of you guys are family guy fans, but here was a family guy episode where there was a flashback to the constitution signing and they made fun of the 2nd amendment being written like this.

[Reoze]

The thing is, there's almost always something more you can do to keep yourself safe. The question is, is it really necessary? Take driving a car for example. Surly it's safe (and smart) to wear a seat belt. Now, I'm sure I'd also be safer if I installed a roll cage, wore a helmet and mouth guard every time I drove to school, but is that really necessary? The only difference between that and carrying a handgun is carrying a handgun puts others lives in danger. Take crumbles for example. He carries yet he said he would shoot to kill if assaulted.

As far as the limited range of a taser....

Some tasers can now hit a target up to 150 meters away. That's good enough. No need to be the guy driving down the road with a helmet on or the guy that walks around in a rubber suite to prevent getting struck by lightening.

And yes, there have been cases where a taser has killed however it's still considered to be a non lethal weapon. Your alot more likely to be 6 foot underground when a gun is pointed at your chest then a taser.

To me this is starting to sound like one of those sympathy cases where you'd feel bad if someone tried to break into your home and harm your family and he got shot 5-6 times in the chest. The fact of the matter is, an informed, and trained individual carrying a handgun is no more dangerous, and in fact magnitudes less dangerous than say someone driving a car.

As far as installing a roll cage, how about air bags, or side airbags, cars that are designed to absorb the impact instead of your body? All of these designs are designed to protect the end user of the vehicle even though seatbelts could be argue'd as "good enough"

Now the problem with the tasers, more often than not people do break into homes or assault people with more than one person, this is only one situation where a taser would be completely worthless. The other issue is what happens when you miss with your single shot taser, How are you supposed to reliably use a taser if you cannot practice it's use. To me I see one untrained individual more dangerous to another persons life with somthing like a taser than an entire group of people who are legally allowed to carry a weapon with them.

Danger does not apply to the person committing the crime or endangering someones life, the idea that the person that put you into a situation where it became a viable and necessary option to draw your weapon and shoot the person until he stops moving is at fault and is no more dangerous than a fluffy kitten. If that person unfortunately dies because of HIS actions then it is HIS fault not the person who shot him. The idea that it is wrong to take a life in any circumstances needs to be thrown out the window becuase unfortunately it IS a reality.

[WizMaster]

Bill of Rights (Liberal Version)

Amendment I
There shall be no show of respect for any Christian religion, or people who believe in a Christian religion, or Christian-based holidays, and no one who professes belief in any Christian religion shall be considered fit for any government position or office. No law shall abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people, peaceably or otherwise, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, unless that speech, that press or those people are in support the actions of Republicans, or in condemnation of the actions of Democrats, or might be construed as giving offense to anyone.

Amendment II
The military and police being the only forces necessary to the security of the State, the right of the common people to keep and bear arms shall be removed, weighed down with restrictions and regulations until private citizens can no longer own anything that might be used as a weapon.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be regarded as necessary to maintaining that peace. When at home, soldiers of any rank are to be considered disposable, interchangeable, dull-witted robots, who can be instantly trained at need, and considered dangerous, uncontrollable, dull-witted barbarians bent on murder, rapine and torture when overseas. As a group, American soldiers are to be lauded and pitied, but individually, reviled.

Amendment IV
The right of all people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against any searches and seizures shall not be violated without a court-ordered warrant, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by the kind of evidence of wrongdoing that could only be gathered with a warrant, and the warrant must precisely describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Personal security shall be considered inviolable for American citizens, foreigners living in America, and foreigners living elsewhere.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, because crimes are the fault of society, and not the individual. Republicans and Conservatives, on the other hand, shall be deemed guilty upon indictment by a grand jury, or even upon accusation of wrongdoing. No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, unless that person show evidence of Conservative thinking. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, unless that person shall be unborn or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise be deemed useless to the State, or a burden. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, public use being defined as anything that might benefit the State in some way, including higher tax revenue from said property.

Amendment VI
In all prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial in the media, and later, if necessary, by jury. Guilt shall be determined by the extent of public outcry that can be created over the nature of the crime, but reduced by the level of celebrity status enjoyed by the accused. The word of anonymous witnesses and experts may be used as evidence in the media trial. If a person found guilty of a crime is able to claim disadvantaged status -- meaning non-white, non-Christian, non-male, poor or homosexual -- that person shall have the right to full and open public sympathy by celebrities and members of the media, unless that person happens to be Conservative or Republican, both of which are forbidden to members of disadvantaged groups.

Amendment VII
The right of trial by jury shall be preserved for captured opponents during time of war, who shall be accorded all the rights and benefits of American citizens in addition to the disadvantaged person status, which shall automatically be granted to all "enemies" of America.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, not even curtailment of any freedoms or rights whatsoever. Those held for committing a crime shall be afforded luxuries in entertainment and food to make up for the injustice of being incarcerated, as well as the right to at least one book deal.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, especially the unquestionable rights of abortion, tax-paid health care and gay marriage.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the Judiciary, who shall have the power to overturn decisions made by vote of the people, amend the Constitution and even change the meaning of the words written herein at will and without recourse by the people.

So sad but so true.

Of course, the "Republican" Party (the current party isn't even close to republican) are just as bad.

[WizMaster]

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

Okay.... now, on to the real deal.

The National Guard are recruited by the State, yet armed and equipped by the Federal government.

Strike one (and pretty damning in general).

The Militia Act of 1903 which further diminished the rights of the state and the individual.

Strike two

The Militia Act of 1792 - Providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia, and providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

Good

The Militia Act of 1903 - Affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.

Bad - First part of post (not the only bad part, just the easiest to identify with currently)

The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 - Made the National Guard a component of the Army.

Bad - because it further marginalizes the intent of the Second Amendment, through previous militia acts and what they contain.

John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 - Federal law was changed so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent. In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.


Holy crap... really bad... bad.... fire bad....

The people that represent 'we the people', are doing us a disservice at almost every level and we can only blame ourselves. Because, we allow it.

Everyone wants to chime with their arguments... But, nothing gets done.

Paraphrasing stuff to show how lame stuff is:

"I was in the army, I know what's going on. Listen to me." (I'll listen, but that doesn't mean it makes sense)

"I'm in law enforcement, we know what's best. Listen to us." (Yeah... this is actually kind of scary)

"I've never even been attacked by a flu virus, we don't need people carrying gun." (Yeah... well... good luck with that)

"I want to interpret constitutional law, the way I think it should be, because I'm better than you at it or something." (No)

"Things are never going to be that bad, so why worry about something that most likely will never happen?" (Are you for real? Is this how you live your life?)

"If we stopped allowing people to have guns, things would magically be better." (No, but, only because I would still have rocks to throw at your head)

"Even if things get that bad, it's not like we can do anything." (We can and must do everything in our power to stop oppression and tyranny... deal with it)

"If everyone had guns, they would shoot other people for fun and profit." (hell, I know if I have a gun, I automatically shoot someone, just for shits and giggles)

"The government knows best." (yes... one of us.... one of us....)

"For your own protection, we need to take these things and rights form you... hey, maybe it will only be a suspension... don't sweat it, it's cool bro." (Yeah, don't taze me bro)

"I can't handle such responsibility, so neither can, nor should, you." (I can't help that you're irresponsibles and paranoid)

"Blah, blah, blah, I'm right, because you can't see how you are so wrong. I'm more enlightened than you, because I advocate more control and you advocate some kind of horrible anarchy that will spread throughout all of mankind like viral marketing or some crap." (Yeah, it's called liberty... it tends to be infectious.)

At least I know, that when the zombie hordes come, I'll be ready with a shotgun in one hand and a sharpened shovel in the other....

Me for president, not because I'm more qualified, but because I actually believe in America and not the UN.

Oh snap, now I'm an isolationist because I believe in my country.

And now... let the stoning commence... star date 12534.4 ... Today, a big piece of the ship fell off.... and nobody likes me.

*starts a slow clap*

[rabidbadger]

*starts a slow clap*

Joining you and the crowd, but not sure why yet :)

[bigstupid]

Wow.... a slow clap... I am truly honored and actually chuckled when I read it...

Also, just to add some more 'storm' to the 'sh*t'.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, isn't about individual rights OR collective rights. It's both, not to mention a civil responsibility. By virtue of that, any arguments actually become moot.

We have the right, both as individuals alone and as individuals that comprise a whole. See why the founding document kicks ass?


But, no matter what, I'll always have my rock... sweet, sweet rock.

[skyz]

We have the right, both as individuals alone and as individuals that comprise a whole. See why the founding document kicks ass?


But, no matter what, I'll always have my rock... sweet, sweet rock.

yes it is a contract including the individual and the whole

a work of genius

rather than a rock i wpuld hope to use inner power and mind power against evil threats

but i know i am a minority as a devout pacifist

but then i can be which totally rocks

[tokenuser]

We have the right, both as individuals alone and as individuals that comprise a whole. See why the founding document kicks ass?There is a reason that the US Constitution is used as the basis of many modern democracies, because as a document it works. They got it right.

The only blemish is the Second Amendment - and it was right for the time (even if it was a kneejerk reaction), but has not aged particularly well (unlike the rest of the doc which is surprisingly ageless). Why hasn't it aged well? Communication and technology - a combined Sword of Damocles.

[Reoze]

There is a reason that the US Constitution is used as the basis of many modern democracies, because as a document it works. They got it right.

The only blemish is the Second Amendment - and it was right for the time (even if it was a kneejerk reaction), but has not aged particularly well (unlike the rest of the doc which is surprisingly ageless). Why hasn't it aged well? Communication and technology - a combined Sword of Damocles.

And how does the Second Amendment NOT work for this day and age? Because the violence levels and crime rates have lowered so much? or just because we don't have the british landing on our shores. If it's the latter than we would call that blowing your load too early. "Oh problems over, lets take them away now" Then the french land and then what? Our army isn't "Superior" to another world powers, in fact most wars depend on numbers rather than strength. History repeats itself, So do peoples mistakes.

In fact the gov't would be much better off spending it's time securing our borders and arresting crooked stock brokers than it would taking our guns away.

[bigstupid]

yes it is a contract including the individual and the whole

a work of genius

rather than a rock i wpuld hope to use inner power and mind power against evil threats

but i know i am a minority as a devout pacifist

but then i can be which totally rocks

pacifism

noun
1. the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable
2. the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration


So... as a pacifist, do you see the merit in fighting back, at all? Not just armies fighting armies, but you fighting off an attacker or unreasoned individual?

I'm just curious, because as a movement, pacifism is a means to an end, much like violence is a means to an end. It's just another way to try and get what you want. The only difference is, you can call it morally correct... oh, wait... you can morally justify just about anything, given the proper situation. That's why morals are morals, but men, be but men.

I don't deride your stance, I simply see the limitations in it, much like I see the limitations in violence. It's all in how things are applied and the situation in which you apply them that matters.

[bigstupid]

There is a reason that the US Constitution is used as the basis of many modern democracies, because as a document it works. They got it right.

The only blemish is the Second Amendment - and it was right for the time (even if it was a kneejerk reaction), but has not aged particularly well (unlike the rest of the doc which is surprisingly ageless). Why hasn't it aged well? Communication and technology - a combined Sword of Damocles.

The Document truly does work. It is a testament to the true genius of man.

The Second Amendment is not a blemish, it is a form of checks and balances. It is meant to protect us from ourselves and from others. It is always more difficult to take over a country both from within and from without, when the populace is informed and armed. The problem is, less and less people are truly informed and being armed is actually up for debate, which by Constitutional law, it can't be.

The Second Amendment exists because people exist. Do you get what I'm saying? The Second Amendment was a form of failsafe, in case certain steps were needed. You never know, those steps might one day be needed.

The men who founded our country, were some of the most pragmatic and enlightened men of their time. I don't think anything they did was kneejerk, in-so-much as it was revolutionary.

[WizMaster]

There is a reason that the US Constitution is used as the basis of many modern democracies, because as a document it works. They got it right.

The only blemish is the Second Amendment - and it was right for the time (even if it was a kneejerk reaction), but has not aged particularly well (unlike the rest of the doc which is surprisingly ageless). Why hasn't it aged well? Communication and technology - a combined Sword of Damocles.

That's so, SO wrong. The second amendment aged well all right. That amendment is a failsafe for the people. America rebelled because the British were basically abusing the rights of the colonists. This amendment wasn't knee-jerk. Governments should be kept in check by the people.

A good point is the Bush Administration (Bush never does anything alone) increasing their power (for no good reason IMO). They are literally breaking the law and getting away with it. Was that part of the founding father's plan? It is very possible that the government will become a police state *cough*London*cough* and then what? You can defend yourself because you let them take away your guns. Hell, even registering your gun is dumb because now they have a list of armed citizens that have to be disarmed.

That amendment wasn't for protecting yourself or your family from criminals (that's a given and shouldn't have to be spelled out). It was to make sure the government doesn't become tyrannical.

Not that anybody gives a **** anymore.

[phatlip12]

That's so, SO wrong. The second amendment aged well all right. That amendment is a failsafe for the people. America rebelled because the British were basically abusing the rights of the colonists. This amendment wasn't knee-jerk. Governments should be kept in check by the people.

A good point is the Bush Administration (Bush never does anything alone) increasing their power (for no good reason IMO). They are literally breaking the law and getting away with it. Was that part of the founding father's plan? It is very possible that the government will become a police state *cough*London*cough* and then what? You can defend yourself because you let them take away your guns. Hell, even registering your gun is dumb because now they have a list of armed citizens that have to be disarmed.

That amendment wasn't for protecting yourself or your family from criminals (that's a given and shouldn't have to be spelled out). It was to make sure the government doesn't become tyrannical.

Not that anybody gives a **** anymore.

I get what your saying, and support the second amendment for the matter (again, my beef is with conceal carry permits but thats a different thread).

My question to you is, in the event of such a revolution do the people even have a chance. It's kind of like shooting a tank with a bee bee gun. How can you compete with god knows what the government has (biological warfare for example)?

[xibalba]

I should be allowed to carry a gun so I can shoot people who are against it....

[phatlip12]

I should be allowed to carry a gun so I can shoot people who are against it....

Thats not really helping your argument much there buddy. ;)

[xibalba]

concealed nah but like they did in the old west on your belt I am all for...we can have good ol duels at high noon then.


If we shoot everyone who is against it there won't be anyone to complain so it will be OK. Problem solved.

[Reoze]

Thats not really helping your argument much there buddy. ;)

Since we're transitioning this into "concealed carry is wrong" What is so wrong about it? There has yet to be an actual murder case in which a CCW holder has knowingly killed an innocent person that I have ever heard of in the last 20 years.

So I'd love to hear your take on why CCW's are wrong, and people shouldn't have a right to use lethal force to defend their life.

[skyz]

So... as a pacifist, do you see the merit in fighting back, at all? Not just armies fighting armies, but you fighting off an attacker or unreasoned individual?

I'm just curious, because as a movement, pacifism is a means to an end, much like violence is a means to an end. It's just another way to try and get what you want. The only difference is, you can call it morally correct... oh, wait... you can morally justify just about anything, given the proper situation. That's why morals are morals, but men, be but men.

I don't deride your stance, I simply see the limitations in it, much like I see the limitations in violence. It's all in how things are applied and the situation in which you apply them that matters.

it is a choice a philosophical position

i was raised in the far east and studied a lot of eastern philosophy including sun tzu 'the art of war' the main premise of which is that by using your wits and strategy violence is the last resort of a skillful warrior

and the samurai code precluded killing in anger

since i have no children i have no one to protect but myself

also it is more an ethical choice than a moral choice

morals tend to result from religious authority where ethics are a human contract

elsewhere here there is a thread where i expressed my frustration/anger with my city and the negative quality of life impact of over development

i was so stressed i googled 'civil disobedience' and all this stuff about ghandi came up

then i remembered the big orange B so i put all my frustration and arguments in a blog

within six weeks my blog came up before the ad for the offending contractor on google and i got a call threatening legal action to which i laughed and said 'please go for it'

needless to say they realized they would be playing into my hands and they submitted to some of my demands (if someone sues you you can counter sue them at no cost for filing whatever is necessary)

i totally put a stop to the city allowing them special permits to work before 8 am or after 6 pm

it worked better than taking a gun and shooting the dewatering pump they had running 24/7 or the workers yelling under my bedroom window

being a pacifist does not mean not defending yourself it just means using other skills

more evolved skills

but as i posted before you cannot demand or legislate that people be evolved past a certain point

which is why i think the second amendment is still applicable

[rabidbadger]

something might change soon:

http://www.carmitimes.com/articles/2007/11/27/news/news1.txt

The U.S. Supreme Court announced last week that it would hear a landmark case involving the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and whether or not the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is a private right.

The case, being referred to as the Heller v. D.C. case, is one in which the District of Columbia is asking the highest court in the land to strike down a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which determined that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership by law-abiding citizens is unconstitutional.

White County couple and Second Amendment activists Mike and Valinda Rowe, along with many other Illinois firearm owners, are watching the case very closely. The Rowes said a Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of individuals to keep and bear arms could have far-ranging effects throughout the nation and especially in Illinois, which is one of only two states left in the country that does not have a concealed carry law.

The Rowes traveled to the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference at Fort Mitchell, Ky., on the outskirts of Cincinnati, Ohio, where the upcoming court case was one of the main topics of the three-day meeting. It was sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Rowes had an opportunity to meet and discuss the issue with Washington, D.C. attorneys Alan Gura and Bob Levy, keynote speakers and the attorneys who will be presenting the supportive argument of individual rights to keep and bear arms in the highly anticipated Supreme Court case. Their discussion with the two prominent attorneys included Chicago's handgun ban, which mimics the D.C. ban.

Levy posited that no one can possess a functional firearm in their home in D.C., while criminals have no trouble acquiring weapons. The appellate court has ruled D.C. might justify concealed-carry restrictions, the registration of firearms, proficiency testing and no gun possession by felons or minors. But an across-the-board ban on all handguns, in all places, for all residents, is not "reasonable."

An internet site created to follow the progress of the case, dcguncase.com, quotes Levy as saying, "The citizens of Washington, D.C.--indeed, all Americans--deserve a clear pronouncement from the nation's highest court on the real meaning of the Second Amendment."

Oral arguments to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court will most likely be scheduled for March or April, with a decision expected by June 2008.

[phatlip12]

Since we're transitioning this into "concealed carry is wrong" What is so wrong about it? There has yet to be an actual murder case in which a CCW holder has knowingly killed an innocent person that I have ever heard of in the last 20 years.

So I'd love to hear your take on why CCW's are wrong, and people shouldn't have a right to use lethal force to defend their life.

Whats wrong with it?! He JOKINGLY said he wanted to shoot people that disagreed with him and you took it seriously and think nothings wrong with it? Wow.

I already stated on many many occasions why I think conceal and carry permits are wrong (within the last 3 days actually). Do some searching and you'll see.

[crumbles]

Whats wrong with it?! He JOKINGLY said he wanted to shoot people that disagreed with him and you took it seriously and think nothings wrong with it? Wow.

I already stated on many many occasions why I think conceal and carry permits are wrong (within the last 3 days actually). Do some searching and you'll see.He wasn't referring to his comment. "Wow." He was asking you why you have a problem with concealed carry and then went on to make the same point I made back on page 2 or so that you've already ignored once, along with most of the other facts that I post making this thread not really a debate but a: "you're wrong!" then a: "no I'm not, here's why." to be responded with a: "No!"

[phatlip12]

He wasn't referring to his comment. "Wow." He was asking you why you have a problem with concealed carry and then went on to make the same point I made back on page 2 or so that you've already ignored once, along with most of the other facts that I post making this thread not really a debate but a: "you're wrong!" then a: "no I'm not, here's why." to be responded with a: "No!"

I stated my position on this and the reasoning behind it many times on these forums (many times in this thread alone). I answered your question. All because you didn't like my answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Search and you'll find it.

[comhcinc]

He wasn't referring to his comment. "Wow." He was asking you why you have a problem with concealed carry and then went on to make the same point I made back on page 2 or so that you've already ignored once, along with most of the other facts that I post making this thread

much like the fact that i brought up US vs. Miller in the Supreme Court said....

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

[crumbles]

I stated my position on this and the reasoning behind it many times on these forums (many times in this thread alone). I answered your question. All because you didn't like my answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Search and you'll find it.I can assure you any answer you think you gave wasn't given. Your answer is just an opinion and based on no facts, despite several stats being posted proving your opinion otherwise.

much like the fact that i brought up US vs. Miller in the Supreme Court said....I just don't feel like dissecting that entire case when it's irrelevant (to do so, no the case.)

The end result [of the Miller case] was a confusing decision that is often used to support both sides of the gun rights debate. The anti-gun lobby can say that it permits reasonable regulation of firearms. Gun rights advocates can say that it supports the right to own military-style weapons. With this unsatisfying legal precedent by the highest court, it is no wonder that the court system has not taken the Second Amendment seriously.

Beginning with Cases v. United States in 1942, the court system conducted a steady degradation of the Second Amendment that was often based on misinterpretations of the Miller case. Each time the Miller opinion was distorted by a lower court, the new opinion became part of case law and made it easier for the next case to further erode Second Amendment protections.

Since judges are generally members of society's elite, it is not surprising that they would be hostile to the idea of ordinary people bearing arms for personal defense or to protect against tyranny.

Law schools ignored the Second Amendment because it was not politically correct. Students were told that it was not worthy of study, as it applied only to the obsolete right of states to form militias. The few idealistic lawyers who challenged the prevailing view quickly discovered that this was not a smart career move.

It was not until the 1990s that legal scholars began to conduct serious research into the intent of the Second Amendment. The overwhelming majority has concluded that it does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. This is gradually becoming more difficult for the legal establishment to ignore.

Legal experts say that sometime in the next few years the Supreme Court will end its half-century of neglect and once again rule on a Second Amendment case. U.S. v. Miller will no doubt be mentioned countless times in the media and will be misrepresented almost every time by self-serving politicians and biased or poorly informed journalists.

[Reoze]

Whats wrong with it?! He JOKINGLY said he wanted to shoot people that disagreed with him and you took it seriously and think nothings wrong with it? Wow.

I already stated on many many occasions why I think conceal and carry permits are wrong (within the last 3 days actually). Do some searching and you'll see.


All I've really seen are proposed alternatives to carrying a handgun none of which really fit into the realm of reality. Tasers are meant to control an uncooperative suspect, they in no way replace an offensive or defensive weapon in any such reality. Nor does pepperspray or teargas, All of which may safely incapacitate or may dangerously do the exact opposite.

In fact just for comparison I'd love to see some type of chart which dictates the time from a draw (pepperspray, handgun, taser) to time where subject is incapacitated. You will see, by a wide margin that bullets work much faster than less than lethal alternatives, and is why they are used today.

Now lets go back to reality for a minute, have you ever heard of a suspect aiming a weapon at a cop and a police officer responding with pepperspray or a taser? This comes down to deterrence, If an individual is willing to take YOUR life or the life of your family and you come back with what looks like a supersoaker or a can of hair spray he'll do it without question. If you came back with a handgun pointed at his chest he'd think twice.

[phatlip12]

I can assure you any answer you think you gave wasn't given. Your answer is just an opinion and based on no facts, despite several stats being posted proving your opinion otherwise.


Thats why it's called my OPINION. Half the links you post trying to prove a point on the forums is a joke anyways. It's usually on some hardcore conservative site. I actually remember one of the sites selling shirts that said "God Bless Republicans" or something like that.

[phatlip12]

I wonder how many people carry to \"protect themselves\" and how many people carry so they can feel powerful because they have a gun...

[Reoze]

I wonder how many people carry to \"protect themselves\" and how many people carry so they can feel powerful because they have a gun...

Well due to the fact that anyone who is carrying a gun has the means to protect themselves, and anyone who decides to whip out their gun without due reason will not only get their permit taken away along with their guns but most likely put on probation at the very least. I'd say there are much more people who legally carry guns for their own protection rather than to "feel tough".

[crumbles]

Thats why it's called my OPINION. Half the links you post trying to prove a point on the forums is a joke anyways. It's usually on some hardcore conservative site. I actually remember one of the sites selling shirts that said "God Bless Republicans" or something like that.Yes, I know it's your opinion. As I was saying, I have posted numerous facts that proves your opinion otherwise. That's usually when an intelligent person changes their opinion on the matter.

I wonder how many people carry to \"protect themselves\" and how many people carry so they can feel powerful because they have a gun...LOL, so that's what it's about for you, huh? Be sure to ask the next cop you run into the same question about his firearm. Let me know how that turns out for you.

Well due to the fact that anyone who is carrying a gun has the means to protect themselves, and anyone who decides to whip out their gun without due reason will not only get their permit taken away along with their guns but most likely put on probation at the very least. I'd say there are much more people who legally carry guns for their own protection rather than to "feel tough".Exactly. It's illegal to brandish a firearm without cause. As I've said before, carrying a firearm has made me more mellow, respect my surroundings more, and stay out of conflict as much as I can.

[masherscf]

I don't know why you guys argue about this stuff? The law is clear about the carrying a hand gun. As long as a private citizen obeys local statutes, he or she should be able to do whatever he or she damn well pleases.

It is a fact in some places you do need a gun to protect yourself. Some places are remote and prone to prediators, both of the human and non-human kind. You're not going to use a taser on a bear or wild-boar. And, good luck pepper-spraying a rattlesnake. Sometimes there's no substitute for good ol' Mr. Browning.

Any more debate on the stuff is silly becuase it's going to boil down to if you believe in that Freudian bullsh*t about a gun being a replacement for a penis.

Shit, you might as well revokes people's driver's licensed for acting like a tool behind the wheel.

[comhcinc]

You're not going to use a taser on a bear or wild-boar. And, good luck pepper-spraying a rattlesnake. Sometimes there's no substitute for good ol' Mr. Browning.

HeHe (http://www.udap.com/)

but yeah you are right. this no sense in this whole penis argument thing. we really should move on.

i'm more interested hearing what gun rights people should have and at what limits. like how many people think owning nukes (http://www.unitednuclear.com/everything.htm) are within thier rights?

[xibalba]

I wonder how many people carry to \"protect themselves\" and how many people carry so they can feel powerful because they have a gun...

I think owning a mac should be illegal, how many people actually buy them for using or is it because they feel superior because they spent 2 grand on something that doesn't do as much as a 600 dollar Windows PC does.....







:D

[masherscf]

HeHe (http://www.udap.com/)

but yeah you are right. this no sense in this whole penis argument thing. we really should move on.

i'm more interested hearing what gun rights people should have and at what limits. like how many people think owning nukes (http://www.unitednuclear.com/everything.htm) are within thier rights?

HA, I forgot about the bear spray. That there is some serious shit. But, what if the bears have Uzis?

[xibalba]

HeHe (http://www.udap.com/)

but yeah you are right. this no sense in this whole penis argument thing. we really should move on.

i'm more interested hearing what gun rights people should have and at what limits. like how many people think owning nukes (http://www.unitednuclear.com/everything.htm) are within thier rights?

I so should be allowed to own a nuke how else would I be able to defend myself in the upcoming WWIII. :D

[xibalba]

HA, I forgot about the bear spray. That there is some serious shit. But, what if the bears have Uzis?

Better yet, what if it is ManBearPig attacking you?

[masherscf]

Better yet, what if it is ManBearPig attacking you?

Damn you, Al gore!

[comhcinc]

HA, I forgot about the bear spray. That there is some serious shit. But, what if the bears have Uzis?

wow, you just completely made me rethink my position. what if super intelligent bears attacked the US...........

[masherscf]

wow, you just completely made me rethink my position. what if super intelligent bears attacked the US...........


After they pop all those unlicensed nukes...anything will be possible. You'll get down on your knees and thank sweet Jesus for that gun...

[crumbles]

I think owning a mac should be illegal, how many people actually buy them for using or is it because they feel superior because they spent 2 grand on something that doesn't do as much as a 600 dollar Windows PC does.....







:DYou will never know how ironic it is that you said that to him. Ever.

[comhcinc]

After they pop all those unlicensed nukes...anything will be possible. You'll get down on your knees and thank sweet Jesus for that gun...
yes think jesus

http://purgatorio1.com/wp-content/pics/churchandguns.jpg

[masherscf]

yes think jesus




I was thinking about my buddy, Jesus Torres. He a purveyer of "previously owned" firearms. He works out of his Ford conversion van down by the I-88 off-ramp in Paramus and fine gun shows everywhere. He has an affection for chocolate covered Skittles. We call him "Sweet Jesus."

[xibalba]

You will never know how ironic it is that you said that to him. Ever.
I only said it because he is a hardcare apple fanboy and of course it is only an opinion.

[comhcinc]

they make chocolate covered Skittles? forget all this gun clap-trap. where can i get some of those?

[xibalba]

Damn you, Al gore!

Because Gore hasn't been able to kill him yet he is now packing,
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q291/xibalbathirteen/mbpg.jpg

[Reoze]

I don't know why you guys argue about this stuff? The law is clear about the carrying a hand gun. As long as a private citizen obeys local statutes, he or she should be able to do whatever he or she damn well pleases.

But this is in fact the problem, when enough people with anti-gun personalities come together courts start throwing the constitution out the window. CA, NY, and D.C are prime examples of this.

[comhcinc]

i love the way you just assume that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is correct and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. we shouldn't think anymore we should just listen to you.

[xibalba]

If people with guns took out people who were anti-gun the problem would be solved they have no way of really defending themselves except they do have pepper spary and tasers oh and can't forget about rocks and sticks so beware. :D ;)

[xibalba]

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

The thing you people aren't getting is it says right to keep and bear arms, and you all seem to agree that arms mean guns, but it says nothing about bullets. It could be interpreted that it includes bullets but it doesn't say it. So in short allow people to have guns just not bullets. :D

[phatlip12]

I don't know why you guys argue about this stuff? The law is clear about the carrying a hand gun. As long as a private citizen obeys local statutes, he or she should be able to do whatever he or she damn well pleases.

It is a fact in some places you do need a gun to protect yourself. Some places are remote and prone to prediators, both of the human and non-human kind. You're not going to use a taser on a bear or wild-boar. And, good luck pepper-spraying a rattlesnake. Sometimes there's no substitute for good ol' Mr. Browning.

Any more debate on the stuff is silly becuase it's going to boil down to if you believe in that Freudian bullsh*t about a gun being a replacement for a penis.

Shit, you might as well revokes people's driver's licensed for acting like a tool behind the wheel.

And again someone doesn't read what I said despite saying it a dozen times. Conceal carry coneal carry coneal carry. Thats all I have a problem with. If someone has to fight off a black bear in the woods or keeps a gun in their home I don't care. And yes, the law allows people to conceal and carry. That doesn't mean I agree with it though. I'm officially done with this thread, nobody bothers reading what I say and try to twist my words to prove their own point. IMO, I pretty much proved my argument where Crumbles said he would shoot and kill someone if they tried to punch him.

[crumbles]

...and try to twist my words to prove their own point. IMO, I pretty much proved my argument where Crumbles said he would shoot and kill someone if they tried to punch him.Yea, I hate it when that happens. Maybe you should go back and actually read what I said about that before trying to twist my words around.

[comhcinc]

The thing you people aren't getting is it says right to keep and bear arms, and you all seem to agree that arms mean guns, but it says nothing about bullets. It could be interpreted that it includes bullets but it doesn't say it. So in short allow people to have guns just not bullets. :D

yeah lets just end it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE&feature=related

[phatlip12]

Yea, I hate it when that happens. Maybe you should go back and actually read what I said about that before trying to twist my words around.

Your first response to my question was: Second, if anyone assaults me, I'm shooting them.
You later went on to say "well, it depends on the situation" but thats the thing...the first thing you said was you would shoot them. In real life, you don't have time to go back and think about it first, you react and you just proved what your first reaction would be. Imagine how you would act under pressure, there was no pressure here...I asked a question online and your first response was shoot.

[crumbles]

Your first response to my question was: "Second, if anyone assaults me, I'm shooting them." You later went on to say "well, it depends on the situation" but thats the thing...the first thing you said was you would shoot them. In real life, you don't have time to go back and think about it first, you react and you just proved what your first reaction would be.If someone assaults me, and I believe that my life or my families life is in danger, yes, you're fucked. Assuming I feel it's safe enough to draw my firearm.

[Reoze]

And again someone doesn't read what I said despite saying it a dozen times. Conceal carry coneal carry coneal carry.

What do you think the bear arms part of it means?

[xibalba]

Wear the gun on your belt for everyone to see.

[phatlip12]

What do you think the bear arms part of it means?

Yes, lets take everything literally. A rocket launcher can certainly be considered an "arm". I think I'll pick one up at Walmart over the weekend. :P

[Reoze]

Yes, lets take everything literally. A rocket launcher can certainly be considered an "arm". I think I'll pick one up at Walmart over the weekend. :P

I'm sure our founding fathers would have no problems with it, In fact there wasn't really any issues with the second amendment until everyone started becoming "politically correct" Starting in about the 60's-70's is when gun control issues started arising.

Taken quite literally in the context it was written, it means, your right to purchase and carry firearms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. Period.

[phatlip12]

I'm sure our founding fathers would have no problems with it, In fact there wasn't really any issues with the second amendment until everyone started becoming "politically correct" Starting in about the 60's-70's is when gun control issues started arising.

Taken quite literally in the context it was written, it means, your right to purchase and carry firearms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. Period.

Totally dude, and why stop there?! Nukes, gernades and anthrax next!

[comhcinc]

I'm sure our founding fathers would have no problems with it, In fact there wasn't really any issues with the second amendment until everyone started becoming "politically correct" Starting in about the 60's-70's is when gun control issues started arising.

Taken quite literally in the context it was written, it means, your right to purchase and carry firearms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. Period.

have you not read any post in this thread? did you not see that US vs. Miler happen in 1939? or that a lot of people (scholars, not the yahoos on this board of which i am one) have done a lot of reseach in the what the 2nd amendment really means?

look i got no problem with you believing that people should be able to walk around with hand guns. i disagree with you but isn't that the whole point of this thread?

no i start having a problem when you just dismiss the facts that other people have shown with your own opinions. that's the #1 reason threads like this die.

[Reoze]

Totally dude, and why stop there?! Nukes, gernades and anthrax next!

now this is where you transition from almost having a point, to being a completely unreasonable person. When the constitution was amended for the second time at the time arms was a synonym for firearms. Nuclear weapons, grenades, anthrax, rocket launchers, missile launchers, slingshots, bb guns, kittens with bombs attached to them are NOT firearms.

If you wish to debate about the definition of a firearm visit the ATF website instead of trying to prove your point in any way possible by means of nothing else than being overly opinionated and twisting peoples words around, Including our founding fathers who I'm sure at this point are rolling over in their graves.

have you not read any post in this thread? did you not see that US vs. Miler happen in 1939? or that a lot of people (scholars, not the yahoos on this board of which i am one) have done a lot of reseach in the what the 2nd amendment really means?

look i got no problem with you believing that people should be able to walk around with hand guns. i disagree with you but isn't that the whole point of this thread?

no i start having a problem when you just dismiss the facts that other people have shown with your own opinions. that's the #1 reason threads like this die.

People who need to interpret the second amendment are really not doing such, they are twisting the second amendment to their own agendas. The same has gone for just about every other piece of the constitution, whether people agree with the actual constitution or not is not the point at hand, what they actually wrote is what THEY at the time thought would be the simplistic approach in their dialect of the english language at the time. But because the word militia got replaced with army and arms with "big shit that goes boom" people have decided to twist whatever they want to their own free will.

[crumbles]

have you not read any post in this thread? did you not see that US vs. Miler happen in 1939? or that a lot of people (scholars, not the yahoos on this board of which i am one) have done a lot of reseach in the what the 2nd amendment really means?

look i got no problem with you believing that people should be able to walk around with hand guns. i disagree with you but isn't that the whole point of this thread?

no i start having a problem when you just dismiss the facts that other people have shown with your own opinions. that's the #1 reason threads like this die.I posted something about that very case that you seem to have ignored. Perhaps you should follow your own advice?

[bigstupid]

I think everyone should go back and read my stuff... it's good.

[xibalba]

I think people should quit arguing about it on a forum...this is like 5th thread the past year on the subject and nothing is different all the same arguments over and over. A few new people joining in on the subject so I guess it is a tad different still the same lame pointless argument that niether side will ever see the other sides point of view.

[crumbles]

I think people should quit arguing about it on a forum...this is like 5th thread the past year on the subject and nothing is different all the same arguments over and over. A few new people joining in on the subject so I guess it is a tad different still the same lame pointless argument that niether side will ever see the other sides point of view.Agreed. Let's just shoot them all.


just kidding phatty

[comhcinc]

People who need to interpret the second amendment are really not doing such, they are twisting the second amendment to their own agendas. The same has gone for just about every other piece of the constitution, whether people agree with the actual constitution or not is not the point at hand, what they actually wrote is what THEY at the time thought would be the simplistic approach in their dialect of the english language at the time. But because the word militia got replaced with army and arms with "big shit that goes boom" people have decided to twist whatever they want to their own free will.

i hate to tell you but the whole point of the surprme court is to interpret the law, which includes the constitution. english has changed alot since those words where written. in fact if you just look at the term "bear arms" you will see alot of reseach the wili article on the 2nd admendment talks about it a little.

oh and that post reads as if you don't believe the 2nd guarantee your gun rights

I posted something about that very case that you seem to have ignored. Perhaps you should follow your own advice?
okay just remember you wanted me to talk about it.

yes i read the same article as you did. since it seems you wanted to pass that off as your thoughts, you choose not to include a Link (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm).

i think it's kinda of sad that you can't read US vs Miller and make up your own mind.

i think it is just plain weird that you chose an artcle written by an optometrist instead of a expert in constitutional law in with to ape.

if dr. brown was here i would question some of his research and ask for some data to back up some of his claims. i would also ask him about a small vision problem i am having.

[skyz]

http://www.fashionjewelryforeveryone.com/HipHopBigBigPhotos/hh036.jpg

[Reoze]

oh and that post reads as if you don't believe the 2nd guarantee your gun rights

No it doesn't not with every lower court in the country trying to make their own interpretation of the second amendment, which in turn sets precedents for future courts and trying to pass more anti firearm laws.

And good luck trying to buy a gun in D.C. right now, so no it does NOT provide this country with it's intended right to bear arms.

[crumbles]

...it seems you wanted to pass that off as your thoughts, you choose not to include a Link (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm).
Yea, that's what I do. I italicize my own thoughts. That's just something I do. Thank you for calling me out on that, I'll correct it for the future. Hey, I have a number of that friend I was telling you about earlier. You'd probably get along with him really well.

[masherscf]

And again someone doesn't read what I said despite saying it a dozen times. Conceal carry coneal carry coneal carry.

Phatlip, buddy. My comment was not directed at you. So my reading of your threads is somewhat irrelevant. You're a smart guy Phatty, but not everything is about you.

My comment was in general.

If local statutes allow carrying a concealed handgun, It's okay with me.

Notice..."with me." The comment was not meant even to address your opinion. I did read it and I thought it was okay. It's just not the way I feel.

My feeling doesn't invalidate yours, you're sophisticated enough to realize that intelligent people can disagree about things.

I'm not advocating a return to the wild west, but I do believe the local municipalities have the right to determine standards of gun ownership. I grew up in a State that allowed you to carry a legally obtained handgun loaded and concealed without a permit as long as you're not a felon. Guess what? There's a shit-load less violent crime there than other places with stricter laws. I mean you can leave your car unlocked and junkies won't swipe your CDs and people will return your wallet of you lose it...with your money still there.

I don't mean to imply that that more liberal gun laws make less crime. I'm just pointing out that local standards are different and your experience isn't everyone's.

When I was your age, I carried a gun...loaded an concealed. It wasn't out of fear for myself or for a sense of power. My personality didn't change and I didn't pick fights because I owned a gun. I never felt the need to shot anyone and most people never even noticed. I even drove across the border to Canada once. You couldn't do that today.

I owned handguns because I enjoyed shooting. When I moved out of Vermont, I sold most of my guns. I still own a shotgun because it's a family heirloom.

It's my opinion, that everyone should learn to shoot. It's a valuable skill, like driving a car. Everyone should learn to handle a firearm with safety, confidence and respect. That way they can form opinions about guns from position of knowledge.

Your mileage my vary, that's okay too.

[bigstupid]

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour. - Address to 1st session of Congress by George Washington

[rabidbadger]

- Address to 1st session of Congress by George Washington


Wow! great quote! Never read that before.

[comhcinc]

I will not carry a gun.... I'll carry your books, I'll carry a torch, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry forward, Cary Grant, cash and carry, carry me back to Old Virginia, I'll even hari-kari if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun!

- Captain Benjamin Franklin Pierce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkeye_Pierce)

[bigstupid]

- Captain Benjamin Franklin Pierce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkeye_Pierce)

He's so much better as that character, than he is, as himself.

[comhcinc]

you would be too if you have a team of writers figuring out every thing you say and do.

[bigstupid]

you would be too if you have a team of writers figuring out every thing you say and do.

Perhaps, but, then again, I'm pretty good at coming up with stuff on my own...

[comhcinc]

i'm sure but you don't get the benefit of everyone around you being scripted

[bigstupid]

i'm sure but you don't get the benefit of everyone around you being scripted

Also true, but, that just makes me even more 'the sh!t'.

Plus, I can come up with quality stuff, even on the fly. I do it on internet forums, as-well-as in person. I put the P U in Peculiar.

Who am I kidding, I stink.

[tokenuser]

- Address to 1st session of Congress by George WashingtonThat would be General George Washington, Commander in Chief of the Continental Army ... a man that lead a military coup against the ruling government, that lead to revolutionary war and established him as leader of the country.

Not surprising that he sees personal weapons as being "the teeth".

Now ignore the fact it was George Washington, and this was how the USA was founded. History is great in 20/20 hindsight, but that description fits many of those that fall under the established "axis of evil" and "dictatorships" the current government is fighting against.

[Reoze]

Well this comes down to you disagreeing with our founding fathers then. not the meaning of the second amendment. Which most people do, they disagree with the people who wrote the amendment itself even though it is in plain english. So they'll attempt to twist the amendment around to suit their needs better. This is pretty much my entire point, is the second amendment is the second amendment and there should be no interpretation, court rulings, case laws, etc.


I bet George Washington is rolling in his grave right now.

By no means did the revolutionary war come even close to the quote : "Axis of evil" we're at war with today. The revolutionary war was just that. The "axis of evil" is a group of nations who plans to use their population to terrorist other countries. Now i'm not going to get this into a middle east debate. But "Revolutionary war" and "terrorism" are on the opposite sides of each other. The revolutionary war was a war fought to bring themselves freedom. These terrorist factions in the middle east are fighting for "The destruction of the jews". There's a big difference there.

[tokenuser]

Well this comes down to you disagreeing with our founding fathers then. not the meaning of the second amendment. Which most people do, they disagree with the people who wrote the amendment itself even though it is in plain english. So they'll attempt to twist the amendment around to suit their needs better. This is pretty much my entire point, is the second amendment is the second amendment and there should be no interpretation, court rulings, case laws, etc.


I bet George Washington is rolling in his grave right now.

By no means did the revolutionary war come even close to the quote : "Axis of evil" we're at war with today. The revolutionary war was just that. The "axis of evil" is a group of nations who plans to use their population to terrorist other countries. Now i'm not going to get this into a middle east debate. But "Revolutionary war" and "terrorism" are on the opposite sides of each other. The revolutionary war was a war fought to bring themselves freedom. These terrorist factions in the middle east are fighting for "The destruction of the jews". There's a big difference there.I was not the first to bring up George Washington, and my putting him into context with respect to his quote on the personal weapons being a keystone is quite valid. People forget that besides being a stateman, he was a military leader that lead a coup against the established government.

In that sense, he was the leader of a military force that performed terrorist acts of aggression.

Forget the names and places and the close ties you have with American history and look at the events that occurred.

[masherscf]

In that sense, he was the leader of a military force that performed terrorist acts of aggression.

It historically accepted that after the British surrendered, the continental Army officers offered to make George Washington king of America. In the context of the time, this would have been a completely natural thing to do. Most colonists were former British subjects and the idea of living without a King was completely alien. However, Washington declined the offer. He felt that trading King George III for King George I would completely betray the American Revolution.

George Washington was the commander-in-chief of a Rebel Army established by an outlaw congress. They practiced Guerrilla tactics that could very well be interpreted as terrorist in today's context. However, I think putting Washington or anyone from the eighteenth century into a modern context is completely unfair.

The idea that former eighteenth century British subjects would design a government without a hereditary gentry is absolutely astounding. Indeed, one hundred and fifty years later when the rest of English commonwealth began to dissolve, It was the American example that informed the new states. That is, there are no Lords or Kings in Canada, Australia or New Zealand either.

I digress...

We can also put the second amendment in the context of the time. In a recent trip to Colonial Williamsburg, I noticed that the Governor's Mansion was decorated with arms of a couple of hundred men. This wasn't because the Governor had penis issues.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1143/543050521_b262e81384.jpg

The governor of the colony was responsible for storing and maintaining the arms for the local militia. These arms included guns, powder and knives. The colonists themselves owned sporting guns. But these arms where not considered military weapons. In England, non-noble subjects were not even allowed sporting guns. Hunting with firearms was restricted to the nobility.

The military arms of the local militia was stored in the Governors house. This made is quite impossible for anyone but the governor to mobilize the militia.

The second amendment empowered the citizens to maintain their own Military arms and codified the right of every citizen to own sporting weapons into law.

[tokenuser]

George Washington was the commander-in-chief of a Rebel Army established by an outlaw congress. They practiced Guerrilla tactics that could very well be interpreted as terrorist in today's context. However, I think putting Washington or anyone from the eighteenth century into a modern context is completely unfair.No argument, and that is precisely why I said that the 2nd Amendment might have been the correct action for the time, but it is the lone aspect of the constitution that has not aged well.
The idea that former eighteenth century British subjects would design a government without a hereditary gentry is absolutely astounding. Indeed, one hundred and fifty years later when the rest of English commonwealth began to dissolve, It was the American example that informed the new states. That is, there are no Lords or Kings in Canada, Australia or New Zealand either. Quite right - with the exception that the head of state for each of those countries mentioned is Queen Elizabeth II, with the powers of the monarchy executed locally by a Governor General. The GG has no day to day power beyond ceremonial, except that swear in the new government on behalf of the monarchy (as is happening today in Australia), and can dissolve the sitting government (as happened to the Whitlam government in the 70s in Australia - as a constitutional form of impeachment).

Having said that, each of those governments have a parliamentary system based on the Westminster system of government, with the exception of the Upper House (House of Lords in the UK) which is a democratically elected body modelled after the US Senate.

I digress...

So do I :)

[rabidbadger]

you guys teach me so much!

[masherscf]

Changing the constitution is a tough nut. I think enough people believe in the Second Amendment to make it the reality for the some time.

If only people were as interested in protecting the rights mentioned in the other amendments.

The rights spelled out by the fifteenth amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion) have been particularly abused recently.

[phatlip12]

It historically accepted that after the British surrendered, the continental Army officers offered to make George Washington king of America. In the context of the time, this would have been a completely natural thing to do. Most colonists were former British subjects and the idea of living without a King was completely alien. However, Washington declined the offer. He felt that trading King George III for King George I would completely betray the American Revolution.

George Washington was the commander-in-chief of a Rebel Army established by an outlaw congress. They practiced Guerrilla tactics that could very well be interpreted as terrorist in today's context. However, I think putting Washington or anyone from the eighteenth century into a modern context is completely unfair.

The idea that former eighteenth century British subjects would design a government without a hereditary gentry is absolutely astounding. Indeed, one hundred and fifty years later when the rest of English commonwealth began to dissolve, It was the American example that informed the new states. That is, there are no Lords or Kings in Canada, Australia or New Zealand either.

I digress...

We can also put the second amendment in the context of the time. In a recent trip to Colonial Williamsburg, I noticed that the Governor's Mansion was decorated with arms of a couple of hundred men. This wasn't because the Governor had penis issues.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1143/543050521_b262e81384.jpg

The governor of the colony was responsible for storing and maintaining the arms for the local militia. These arms included guns, powder and knives. The colonists themselves owned sporting guns. But these arms where not considered military weapons. In England, non-noble subjects were not even allowed sporting guns. Hunting with firearms was restricted to the nobility.

The military arms of the local militia was stored in the Governors house. This made is quite impossible for anyone but the governor to mobilize the militia.

The second amendment empowered the citizens to maintain their own Military arms and codified the right of every citizen to own sporting weapons into law.

"At the time your predecessors were putting leaches on patients, mine were writing the constitution."- my history teacher

[masherscf]

"At the time your predecessors were putting leaches on patients, mine were writing the constitution."- my history teacher

Doctors still use leeches. Leeches secrete an anti-coagulant that hasn't been duplicated artificially. Of course, my predecessors were using leeches and writing the constitution.

A bit of trivia: One of my great-great-great-great-grandfathers was a member of the first continental congress, a signer of the Articles of Confederation and a delegate to the New York convention that ratified the Constitution.

[phatlip12]

Doctors still use leeches. Leeches secrete an anti-coagulant that hasn't been duplicated artificially. Of course, my predecessors were using leeches and writing the constitution.

A bit of trivia: One of my great-great-great-great-grandfathers was a member of the first continental congress, a signer of the Articles of Confederation and a delegate to the New York convention that ratified the Constitution.

Yes, but we now know leaches aren't the best cure for the common cold. ;)

[skyz]

Yes, but we now know leaches aren't the best cure for the common cold. ;)

but you are comparing apples and roses

medical science or any science evolving does not have any necessary correlation with any measurable advances in the nature of humans recourse to more or less violence

[rabidbadger]

this won't cure a cold, but you will live longer. (http://news.softpedia.com/news/10-Minutes-Of-Staring-Boobs-Daily-Prolongs-Man-039-s-Life-by-5-Years-72490.shtml)..

[phatlip12]

but you are comparing apples and roses

medical science or any science evolving does not have any necessary correlation with any measurable advances in the nature of humans recourse to more or less violence

Who said anything about violence?

[masherscf]

Yes, but we now know leaches aren't the best cure for the common cold. ;)

Maybe the tastiest!

[tokenuser]

A bit of trivia: One of my great-great-great-great-grandfathers was a member of the first continental congress, a signer of the Articles of Confederation and a delegate to the New York convention that ratified the Constitution.Mine were transported to the colonies for 7 years of hard labour. Such is life.

[masherscf]

Mine were transported to the colonies for 7 years of hard labour. Such is life.

This is the glory of America. It doesn't matter what your forefathers did to get here. You're still get the same opportunities...

That's the way it oughta be anyway...

[tokenuser]

This is the glory of America. It doesn't matter what your forefathers did to get here. You're still get the same opportunities...

That's the way it oughta be anyway...

I am going to butcher this - but at the tail end of one of Robert Hughes "The Fatal Shore" episodes (a documentary series on Australia - plays on HD from time to time), he comments that people arrived in America with the highest of hopes, and principles which meant there was nothing else to strive for and the only direction society could hear was down, while Australia was founded by convicts with no hopes and a government with few principles so all they had was dreams.

He said it far more eloquently - and no amount of googling can find me the correct quote.

He is far more cynical than even I am.

[skyz]

Who said anything about violence?


well if there is no violence why would you need/want guns

if there were no fear of either national or personal vioent attack against one nor did one want to be enabled to be violent for whatever reason then why would guns be an issue

(right hunting etc. but other than that)

gun control is about violence just like clothes are about bodies

the II amendement is addressing the issue of violence and when it is necessary and therfore legally allowed

[phatlip12]

well if there is no violence why would you need/want guns

if there were no fear of either national or personal vioent attack against one nor did one want to be enabled to be violent for whatever reason then why would guns be an issue

(right hunting etc. but other than that)

gun control is about violence just like clothes are about bodies

the II amendement is addressing the issue of violence and when it is necessary and therfore legally allowed



I wasn't referring to guns. I was comparing doctors using leaches to the writers of the constitution.

[tokenuser]

I wasn't referring to guns. I was comparing doctors using leaches to the writers of the constitution.Doctors wrote the constitution? I thought most of them were lawyers ... or are you calling writers a bunch of leeches? You can be so confusing sometimes.

[phatlip12]

Doctors wrote the constitution? I thought most of them were lawyers ... or are you calling writers a bunch of leeches? You can be so confusing sometimes.

I said compare which indicates I'm talking about two things. The first thing being doctors, the second being those who wrote the constitution (the lawyers you just mentioned). I'm not confusing, people just don't read what I say. :(

[masherscf]

He is far more cynical than even I am.

Despite the fact that the English colonies in America were formed as an economic venture and Australia was formed as a penal colony. Don't discount the similar experiences that the earliest arrivals had. Early English colonists to America were often only slightly above prison inmates in social standing. Many others were outright kidnapped from their homes and sold into slavery.

[rabidbadger]

I know what you meant, leaches v writeres, but Skyy, you gotta remember some of the most major medical breakthroughs were made during time of war, trying to save soildiers/warriors...

[skyz]

I know what you meant, leaches v writeres, but Skyy, you gotta remember some of the most major medical breakthroughs were made during time of war, trying to save soildiers/warriors...

right but phat was talking about writers :D

[skyz]

this won't cure a cold, but you will live longer. (http://news.softpedia.com/news/10-Minutes-Of-Staring-Boobs-Daily-Prolongs-Man-039-s-Life-by-5-Years-72490.shtml)..

hmm do you think that said D's need be presented a la slut or would you think they would be just as effective in an armani or chanel suit in a boardroom with big money involved (for ideas not the D's)

or in jean's and a t shirt

does it work classy as well as or less than slutty or better

this is an important question to me :o

[tokenuser]

hmm do you think that said D's need be presented a la slut or would you think they would be just as effective in an armani or chanel suit in a boardroom with big money involved (for ideas not the D's)

or in jean's and a t shirt

does it work classy as well as or less than slutty or better

this is an important question to me :oI think they are referrring to bare nekkid boobage. I think that they might have hit upon why women live longer than men ... because like it or not, most of you (that bathe) see regular boobage.

[rabidbadger]

twas but a joke... it's been discredited... (http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/breasts.asp)

[skyz]

I think they are referrring to bare nekkid boobage. I think that they might have hit upon why women live longer than men ... because like it or not, most of you (that bathe) see regular boobage.


maybe that is why we make such a ritual of bathing

the girly gilry types

i love buying shampoos and soaps and body washes and bubble bath

[skyz]

twas but a joke... it's been discredited... (http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/breasts.asp)

this one is better :D


shopping is healthy (http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/Clothes%20Articles/ShoppingIsHealthy.htm)

[Reoze]

this one is better :D


shopping is healthy (http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/Clothes%20Articles/ShoppingIsHealthy.htm)

You know a woman must have wrote that.

[tokenuser]

this one is better :D


shopping is healthy (http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/Clothes%20Articles/ShoppingIsHealthy.htm)I a not so sure about living longer - but this is incentive to your brain healthy (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/04/2108512.htm).

[crumbles]

I thought this was interesting. Check out this picture:

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff99/Bojangles888/sign.jpg

Those two holes in the brick are where the "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign used to be at the Omaha Mall. Usually after a shooting spree they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. This is semi-exciting for me right now. Either the mall has learned their lesson and decided that it's a bad thing for the criminal to be the only person armed, or, they are going to severely disappoint me and put up a larger sign with flashing lights or something. Sadly, it took the death of several people to repeal this rule.

[masherscf]

I havta say, the only place that I took a gun where there was a "No Guns Allowed" sign was Canada...