quade 4 #1 January 31, 2004 LINK This message has been brought to you by the good folks at FutureCam™. Reading Monday's News TODAY!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #2 January 31, 2004 Oh please Quade. How do you expect the govt to deal with terrorism? Get rid of all Federal LEO's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 January 31, 2004 Ya know, when you add it all up, there's a LOT of stuff that's NOT related to terrorism that's pointed out in the article. Eeegads.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #4 January 31, 2004 Quote Ya know, when you add it all up, there's a LOT of stuff that's NOT related to terrorism that's pointed out in the article. True....and there are "Good Cops" and "Bad Cops." Had a MAJOR argument with one of "The Bosses" where I work the other day. He was telling us how we SHOULDN'T use video during interrogations. I tend to have an opposite view. I was on the receiving end of some jackasses that thought they could "get away with more" if they didn't use video. Well....they tried and I ate them a new ass in court. Even though they lied. I say Cops have a responsibility to do the job right. Better 10 guilty free than 1 innocent falsely accused. We aren't all storm troopers although some of these guys scare me. I just do what I can...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #5 January 31, 2004 You know, for someone that's anti-gun and for removing more of my gun rights, you sure do talk big about personal freedom. Not to mention the quote that you started this thread with. That's pretty hypocritical of you, even for a liberal.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #6 January 31, 2004 The writer of this article is fairly ignorant. QuoteSteroids? You heard the Nanny in Chief Steroids weren't banned by Bush. They have been illegal for quite a while now except for medical purposes. He just insisted that professional sports start policing their ranks. QuoteOn medical marijuana, the Bush doctrine has led to federal agents' overruling state laws that tolerate the use of pot for medicinal purposes. Bush didn't do this. The US Constitution overrules state laws. It is in the Supremecy Clause. Check it out. QuoteBut who exactly determines what is right and what is wrong? Churches? Synagogues? Parents? Teachers? Nah. The Federal Government. What? If the Federal Government doesn't determine what is right or wrong, IOW what is law and what is against the law, then who will? Should we start letting every individual write his own set of laws. This statement completely baffles me. QuoteThe No Child Left Behind Act holds states and localities accountable for meeting educational standards in order to qualify for federal funds. No wonder Ted Kennedy originally signed on. This guy will probably vote for Kerry, who voted 96% of the time with Ted Kennedy, while still bad mouthing Kennedy. QuotePeople used to ridicule President Clinton's laundry list of micro-initiatives. If that would have been one of only a few of Clinton's problems we probably would have let it slide. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 January 31, 2004 Quote You know, for someone that's anti-gun and for removing more of my gun rights, you sure do talk big about personal freedom. Not to mention the quote that you started this thread with. That's pretty hypocritical of you, even for a liberal. I think you and I have a different concept of the term personal freedom. I am all for you being able to use a gun to protect you and your family. I am all for you being able to use a gun to hunt. I am all for you being able to collect and admire guns. I am all for you being able to compete in gun sporting events. However, your rights end where other people's begin. With that in mind: I am all for mandatory gun safety education before gun purchases. I am all for keeping certain types of guns out of general circulation. I am all for criminal background checks before the purchase of weapons. To me, the easiest solution to the above three issues would be some sort of gun owner license. I realize that does not go down well with the NRA and probably most of the folks that will be involved in this thread, but I see it as simply being the most efficient way of dealing with the issues. I am sorry if you and others feel this somehow restricts your freedom and ability to enjoy life. Seriously. If you can't enjoy life because you can't have total and unlimited access to any and all weapons that have ever been made or ever will be made, then perhaps nothing will make you happy -- ever. When Article II was written, the framers had absolutely no concept whatsoever of the rapidity and lethality of modern weaponry. If you wish to argue what was or was not meant by the word "arms", then even with all of the evil ideas I've posted above, I'll allow you absolute and total unrestricted access to as many muzzle loading, flint-lock weapons as you wish to purchase. That said, let's get back on topic. The current Administration is robbing you of far more rights than I ever could have imagined. If you want to talk about me being hypocritical -- fine. Just consider this -- I'm not the President of the United States of America.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 January 31, 2004 You've listened to or read the President's 2004 State of the Union Address -- yes? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html I believe some of your questions can be answered by looking at it again.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #9 January 31, 2004 QuoteWhen Article II was written, the framers had absolutely no concept whatsoever of the rapidity and lethality of modern weaponry. If you wish to argue what was or was not meant by the word "arms", then even with all of the evil ideas I've posted above, I'll allow you absolute and total unrestricted access to as many muzzle loading, flint-lock weapons as you wish to purchase. Fine. I guess you realize that you've just relegated yourself to telling us about this by putting quill into inkwell, quill to paper, paper to envelope and sending it by pony express to several thousand people, taking weeks or months to get a reply. After all, the framers of the Constitution had no idea that you'd be able, with the press of your return key, to send the same propaganda to potentially millions of people around the world. So if you want to tell us that the framers foresaw recognizing only our right to flintlocks, since semi-automatics were many decades away, and therefore we are guaranteed rights only to flintlocks, then I propose that in order for your logic to be valid, you are not guaranteed the right to any MEDIA technology that did not exist in 1789, either. So now I expect you to abandon that line of argument real quick, without a word. Arms for personal defense or use in a militia (note I said "OR") are still of the same nature that they were in 1789. They're safer for the user (and those around the user), they're more reliable and longer-lasting, they're more accurate, and yes they hold more ammunition. But they are still tools that must be used with some degree of knowledge and skill, and they do NOT turn their users into some unstoppable supermen. "The rapidity and lethality of modern firearms?" What, you think getting hit by a half-inch diameter musketball made of lead is so preferable to a copper-jacketed slug of .38 inch? If you appeared to know anything about guns beyond what you find on the HCI website, it would be much more fruitful debating this stuff with you. Alas, you don't. I find it very telling that you say, "I'll allow you absolute and total unrestricted..." I find that it's typical of liberals to think of themselves as the keepers and dispensers of rights and freedoms, like we all enjoy these things at their pleasure. Even if it's an unconscious tendency and you don't realize you're doing it, I think it demonstrates the underlying pervasive attitude liberals hold regarding rights and freedoms. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #10 January 31, 2004 QuoteJust consider this -- I'm not the President of the United States of America. In case you've forgotten, the President alone has very little power. In the case of our rights being slowly stripped away, don't forget to include Congress in your equation. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #11 January 31, 2004 Don't you ever get tired of having to apologize for Bush?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #12 January 31, 2004 Quote QuoteJust consider this -- I'm not the President of the United States of America. In case you've forgotten, the President alone has very little power. In the case of our rights being slowly stripped away, don't forget to include Congress in your equation. - Jim Which party controls both houses of Congress and the White House? Budget surplus becomes record deficit Record unemployment Go to war under false pretenses Biggest loss of civil liberties since WWII Huge growth in government and the list goes on.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #13 January 31, 2004 QuoteHuge growth in government HEY........I have a kick ass job because of that growth. So...you won't hear any complaints from me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 January 31, 2004 You've made a perfect point. Technology -does- change and your Constitutional rights don't always make sense when taken in light of the new technology. I believe that Article II is one of them. BTW, I guess you didn't read my previous post very well. I was only saying that when Article II was written that was their frame of reference. Now, I'd like to address a few other points. Quote So if you want to tell us that the framers foresaw recognizing only our right to flintlocks, since semi-automatics were many decades away, and therefore we are guaranteed rights only to flintlocks, then I propose that in order for your logic to be valid, you are not guaranteed the right to any MEDIA technology that did not exist in 1789, either. So now I expect you to abandon that line of argument real quick, without a word. Get used to disappointment. Article I begins with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law . . ." Article II does not. Quote "The rapidity and lethality of modern firearms?" What, you think getting hit by a half-inch diameter musketball made of lead is so preferable to a copper-jacketed slug of .38 inch? Ok, tell me which is the more efficient weapon if you want to fire it twice: the muzzle loading flint-lock or the revolver? Don't be silly. Quote If you appeared to know anything about guns beyond what you find on the HCI website, it would be much more fruitful debating this stuff with you. Alas, you don't. Actually, I don't even know what web site you're talking about. I think you'd do well not to assume you know what other people know. You don't and I can say that with 100 percent confidence.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #15 January 31, 2004 The point was, that, every citizen, if he/she wanted to, could have the latest technology that the government/law enforcement had. At that time, the biggest advancement was a rifled barrel, which was a very big deal and advancement. They understood that things would continue to progress. Just as history has shown that the Crossbow was the WMD a few hundred years ago, being men schooled in history, they understood what was to come. Do I think that I'll have to fight off the government someday? Well, no, not in my lifetime atleast, but should the government try to take away one of my rights? Nope. They take that, and they might as well also take away my right to vote and everything else.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #16 January 31, 2004 QuoteWhich party controls both houses of Congress and the White House? I am aware that the Republicans currently hold the majority of the seats in Congress; just as you are aware that Congress passed, by an overwhelming majority, those resolutions (such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security) which have expanded the government. QuoteBudget surplus becomes record deficit The previous administration created the budget surplus by dismantling the military and intelligence agencies. The current administration has been faced with the task of putting them back together. Stuff isn't free, you know. QuoteRecord unemployment Possibly due to the burst of the dot com bubble? It was felt by more than just the tech community, you know. QuoteGo to war under false pretenses Regardless of the pretenses, the war was necessary, and you know it. You're also aware that the war wasn't Bush's idea. This war has been in the planning stages since at least the Clinton administration, maybe earlier than that. QuoteBiggest loss of civil liberties since WWII I can't argue with this one, unfortunately. However, I can say that congress passed the Patriot Act by an overwhelming majority. That's Republicans and Democrats. QuoteHuge growth in government I think I've addressed this one twice already. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #17 January 31, 2004 QuoteThe point was, that, every citizen, if he/she wanted to, could have the latest technology that the government/law enforcement had. At that time, the biggest advancement was a rifled barrel, which was a very big deal and advancement. They understood that things would continue to progress. Just as history has shown that the Crossbow was the WMD a few hundred years ago, being men schooled in history, they understood what was to come. Do I think that I'll have to fight off the government someday? Well, no, not in my lifetime atleast, but should the government try to take away one of my rights? Nope. They take that, and they might as well also take away my right to vote and everything else. The points you make illustrate the irrelevance of 2nd Amendment for its original purpose. No way you and your buddies with the best rifles and handguns and knives ever made will fight off a rogue government equipped with Abrams tanks, A10s, Apaches, smart missiles, Vulcan guns, etc. History also shows that despotic governments can always find people to fight for them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #18 January 31, 2004 Quote QuoteWhich party controls both houses of Congress and the White House? I am aware that the Republicans currently hold the majority of the seats in Congress; just as you are aware that Congress passed, by an overwhelming majority, those resolutions (such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security) which have expanded the government. QuoteBudget surplus becomes record deficit The previous administration created the budget surplus by dismantling the military and intelligence agencies. The current administration has been faced with the task of putting them back together. Stuff isn't free, you know. - Jim Exercise for the reader - compare the increase in military spending with the increase in the deficit since 2000. To save you the trouble, it's a very small fraction. Your argument doesn't hold water.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 January 31, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget surplus becomes record deficit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The previous administration created the budget surplus by dismantling the military and intelligence agencies. The current administration has been faced with the task of putting them back together. Stuff isn't free, you know. How much of the $570 BILLION budget that Bush is presenting on Monday is military and intelligence spending? And if it's so damn expensive to rebuild these things, why did he cut taxes? Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Record unemployment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possibly due to the burst of the dot com bubble? It was felt by more than just the tech community, you know. Not to mention Enron. Actually, we won't mention that since it can't really be discussed until Bush and Cheyney release the documentation that they've been asked for for months. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #20 January 31, 2004 Article II was written with one intent. Our forefathers looked at history and they looked at what they had just gone through and they recognized that the natural progression of things was that goverments and people in power eventually take away the liberties granted to Man by God. Article II is not about having guns for pleasure, it is about a responsibility of men to be prepared to overthrow a government that has taken advantage of the governed. They recognized that if the citizens had the ability to form militias they would be able to fight against tyranny in any form. "The rights of groups of citizens were protected by the allowance of militias outside of the armed forces that were under the control of the federal government, ensuring through such that any local tyrant could be overthrown despite corruption within the courts or the federal government. And should all else fail, the rights of the citizens could be protected by the citizens, for the citizens had every right and the duty to arm themselves. " for a better understanding of what I am saying go herehttp://www.wilderness-cry.com/rmarlett/cite/reasons-2nd.html The whole point is that our forefathers never intended for us to be weaker than the military that was controlled by goverments. Now they certainly never saw tanks and nuclear bombs and land mines in their future, and I do believe that it would be scary if we could all have tanks, etc. But if we were to maintain the spirit of the second amendment then the current restrictions on firearms is clearly against it. It is a hard position for us to be in. The current state of weaponry is such that we obviously could never outgun the Federal goverment shoudl the need ever arise. But the more restrictions that are placed on us the less able to protect ourselves from a goverment taking our liberties away we become. Where to draw the line? Who knows exactly where, but I think we have allowed it to be drawn too far into our rights. And to not recognize this, I believe is a dangerous place to be. Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " If you look at how much work went into creating the Constitution and you look at the fact that some states would not sign the Constitution without a promise of the Bill of Rights and then look at the order they wrote them in, it is clear that Article ii was very essential to our founding fathers. And therefore, Benjamin Franklin's quote most definitely applies here. Do I have a problem with permits or background checks? Absolutely not. Do I have a problem with requiring firearm safety course for concealed carry permits? Not at all. But I have a problem when the liberties granted to law abiding citizens by the Constitution are taken away. And I think current gun laws are clear violations of the Intent and Spirit of our founding fathers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #21 January 31, 2004 QuoteThe points you make illustrate the irrelevance of 2nd Amendment for its original purpose. No way you and your buddies with the best rifles and handguns and knives ever made will fight off a rogue government equipped with Abrams tanks, A10s, Apaches, smart missiles, Vulcan guns, etc. History also shows that despotic governments can always find people to fight for them. You are right but with 50 caliber high rate of fire weapons, M4's, Night vision, M16's and a plethora of other weapons we have been denied access to we would stand a better chance. None of us are saying that we are anywhere near this in the even unforeseeable future, but start allowing any rights to be taken away and you might as well give them all up. Mankind has proven that throughout history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #22 January 31, 2004 QuoteThe points you make illustrate the irrelevance of 2nd Amendment for its original purpose. No way you and your buddies with the best rifles and handguns and knives ever made will fight off a rogue government equipped with Abrams tanks, A10s, Apaches, smart missiles, Vulcan guns, etc. Then how come so many people are crying for us to get out of Iraq because of 500+ casualties? Those people seem to think that our modern armed forces don't stand a chance against those poorly armed guerilla fighters. It is still the case that an armed citizenry is a check against any unbridled ambitions of the standing army. The founding fathers were real big on checks and balances. That's why we have a House and a Senate, and an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch. An armed citizenry and a professional army are just another check and balance in the big scheme of things. Sure, the government has all the high tech weaponry, but would they use it against their own citizens? If they did, we'd have a full scale revolution, and probably rightly so. And the professional armed forces pale in comparison to the number of veterans now in civilian life. There is more combat experience in those former soldiers than in the active duty forces. If commanders were to give orders to troops to fire on civilians, a large bunch of them would refuse to carry-out those orders. Maybe even turning on the commanders who issued those orders. The military forces themselves might be at war with each other. Finally, professional armies are mostly unable to win guerrilla wars. We learned that lesson ourselves. The French learned it. The British learned it. And the Russians learned it. High tech weaponry doesn't guarantee victory in widespread guerilla warfare. A million active duty American soldiers couldn't do it in the tiny country of Vietnam, and they sure as heck couldn't do it in the vast spaces of the United States. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #23 January 31, 2004 QuoteArticle I begins with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law . . ." Article II does not. You seem to have forgotten that the 2nd Amendment ends with "...shall not be infringed". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #24 January 31, 2004 QuoteIf you can't enjoy life because you can't have total and unlimited access to any and all weapons that have ever been made or ever will be made, then perhaps nothing will make you happy... Taking this to the exteme like this, and characterizing gun owners in this manner, only exposes your own extremism, and an illogical and unfounded bias against gun owners. Many gun owners are quite in favor of *some* restrictions. However, just because we think that other laws go too far, does not mean that we wish that anyone could own any weapon, with no questions asked. Nor does it mean that we "can't enjoy life". Such arguments on your part only serve to detract from whatever valid points you may have to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowwhite 0 #25 January 31, 2004 I think that we need a task force to examine this statement, and a group of people to enforce it.skydiveTaylorville.org freefallbeth@yahoo.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
