Bowling For Columbine

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Ok, then when is a judge, or any person for that matter, right?

um, when they're making decisions based on the law, not legislating fom the bench. I know judges know more about me than the law (generally), but don't tell me you trust them all.

Quote

Though one could ensure adequate protection for one self by training martial arts and sometimes some advance planning and common sense or maybe even using a knife.

Let me tell you a story. My uncle was a detective for 30 years. Somewhere in that tenure, he was investigating gang/drug activity. Well, seven gang bangers decided to pay him a visit one night. Except he wasn't home, his wife and a friend were. The friend answered the door to seven felons bent on assault and general mayhem.

He solved the problem with a WWII issue .45 and by shouting to my aunt to get the shotgun. The results: two dead felons, a new scar for my uncle, and my aunt's first time firing shots in anger.

Care to tell me they could have handled seven thugs with martial arts and a knife?

Quote

Hence, guns do not have to a part of the rights under the Bill of Rights. It does not say in the Bill of Rights that americans will be allowed to carry along guns of all types?

Does it say in the Bill of Rights that playboy and hustler can operate? Does it say the internet should not be regulated? Does it say you should not have your hands cut off for theft? (who says it's cruel and unusual?)

Guns do not qualify as arms under the the second amendment? What does?

You seem to be ok with self preservation. Why not allow the best tool for the job? Why restrict the good guys?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If you add up the top ten causes of premature death (3,938,000), and compare that to the number of fatal firearm murders and accidents (11,000), you see that guns are used in just 4/10ths of one percent of all premature deaths.

absolutely true.

However, organizations are doing massive amounts of work to try and bring those numbers down. Smoking is against the law in many public places. That would be a law restricting a freedom to prevent death. I am sure we could both come up with more examples for the rest of the list.

Why should firearms be excluded from that?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Do you object to people using guns for target shooting?

I know I don't, but that doesn't take away from teh fcat that target shooting has originally een practice for shooting at human beings. The aim to kill practice.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

But honestly, what does someone need a hand-gun for? Give me one reason someone needs a hand-gun... And don't just say "to protect themselves". That's bullshit.

45 of the 50 states in America now have concealed handgun carry laws, allowing their citizens to carry handguns for self defense.

So it seems to me that your opinion of the usefulness of handguns for self defense is a minority one.

Hundreds of thousands of people have availed themselves of this option in those states. In none of them has it created any problems sufficient to want them to revoke the law. All the scare-tactic predictions of "blood in the streets" from the anti-gun folks, have proven false, in every single state that has implemented such laws.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Ummm...ever see those commercials with Sally Struthers to get your mail order diploma in accounting, art instruction, or gun smithing?

No, actually I never do.

Quote

Anyone with a hunk of metal and some tools can make a gun. I don't know where you get your mail order weapons grade plutonium license.

If you would make it illegal to make a gun, obviously those commercials would not be there anymore and much of that knowledge will eventually be lost. It has happened in many other cases.

Quote

I really don't see the reason for this train of thought. Yeah, fine, just let me have an M16, a shotgun and a 9mm sidearm, I don't care.

I believe the average footsoldier is armed with one weapon.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Or, one would do that be electiing the proper government. The immense powers given to the government have come in place due to laws passed by your current goverment. Since it scares you so much that you feel the need to arm yourself, I would assume that you are not going to vote for Bush in the next election?

Didn't vote for him before, won't ever, you've been around, I'm one of the more vocal anti-bush people on here. Unfortunately, there are a lot sheeple that buy into his propaganda that do and would vote for him. Do you think the Germans knew what Hitler would do when they elected him chancelor?

Quote

As far as I understand, constitutional scholars have no powers in the current framewaork. It is the judges who decide whether a law is constitional or not. In order to do that, the judge will have to interpret the constitution. Or am I way off base here?

No, I guess that's true, to an extent. But the interpretations of others feed into the decisions the justices make. I just mean that they don't sit down and study the constitution and then decide ahead of time what laws would or wouldn't fit with it. When a law is presented to them to decide the constitutionality, they'll then make a decision. They don't set up rules based on the constitution, they determine the legitimacy of rules based on it. Subtle difference, but there is one, none the less.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

45 of the 50 states in America now have concealed handgun carry laws, allowing their citizens to carry handguns for self defense.

So it seems to me that your opinion of the usefulness of handguns for self defense is a minority one.

Hundreds of thousands of people have availed themselves of this option in those states. In none of them has it created any problems sufficient to want them to revoke the law. All the scare-tactic predictions of "blood in the streets" from the anti-gun folks, have proven false, in every single state that has implemented such laws.

That still doesn't prove it makes it a better place to live either.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Didn't vote for him before, won't ever, you've been around, I'm one of the more vocal anti-bush people on here. Unfortunately, there are a lot sheeple that buy into his propaganda that do and would vote for him. Do you think the Germans knew what Hitler would do when they elected him chancelor?

I agree. I find Bush a very scary man. The powers given to the US government over its citizens in the last two years is astonishing. I am truly surprised not more people are upset about that. And there is the little fact about Bush hearing God speaking to him in his head. That doesn't seem to bother many peple either

Quote

No, I guess that's true, to an extent. But the interpretations of others feed into the decisions the justices make. I just mean that they don't sit down and study the constitution and then decide ahead of time what laws would or wouldn't fit with it. When a law is presented to them to decide the constitutionality, they'll then make a decision. They don't set up rules based on the constitution, they determine the legitimacy of rules based on it. Subtle difference, but there is one, none the less.

I now understand where you were coming from and I agree with you.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I never said they have no defensive value. But just what is there defensive value? Their potential to kill.

So? Pulling a twinkie out of your pocket isn't going to have much defensive value. If it doesn't threaten the attacker with something he respects, then it's worthless. As long as the person using the gun is exercising a proper response to a real threat, it is acceptable under the law to use deadly force.

Are you favor of eliminating "deadly force" laws, and make it murder to kill a criminal in self-defense who is attacking you violently?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not the exact make and model that should be considered, rather the type of weapon and its firepower.

That is not what you said when you mentioned the interpretation. If you are allowed to carry what the average footsoldier carries, then conversely you should not be allowed to carry anything else.

Why does one denote the other? I wish kallend were as interested in rebuffing your poor arguments as some others.

Quote

Furthermore, I would think that the rational man would keep in mind that the framers of the Bill of Rights could not possibly foresee the immense firepower which could once be packed into a single weapon. Hence, to me it would make even more sense that guns are restricted.

Oh I love this answer. I'm all for that, if you ok with the media being restricted to the printing press, citizens having no vehicles faster than a horse and buggy, computers and the internet not falling under the first amendment because the framers could not possibly foresee the immense power that could be packed into one.

If you limit guns to those of the time-period, why not all other tools and machines? They foresaw change, and they gave us what we needed to cope with it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Hey John,

I keep waiting for that evidence about the fact that gun laws don't work.

I know you are just ignoring me, but it does look kind of silly that you can't come up with any evidence.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If you would make it illegal to make a gun, obviously those commercials would not be there anymore and much of that knowledge will eventually be lost. It has happened in many other cases.

It has? Like what? What do we not know how to make because of a ban? Name something and give me 3 minutes to find the blue prints on the internet. And even if it did work that way, I guarantee that the criminal world would be the last to lose that knowledge.

Quote

I believe the average footsoldier is armed with one weapon.

I really don't know what your point is with this line of argument.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Hey John,

I keep waiting for that evidence about the fact that gun laws don't work.

I know you are just ignoring me, but it does look kind of silly that you can't come up with any evidence.

The links have been posted many times. I'm sure you can find them. But take a look at gun crime before and after the Brady Bill of 1994 which is the most sweeping gun control legislation to come about since the initial restrictions on any type of weapons in the 20's. Then you tell me whether you think gun control laws have worked or not.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

And what about guns? Are they predominantly used for purposes other than killing or threatening death? It is true that one could use a gun for target practice, but what is the purpose of target practice? To make one better at killing or threatening death.

You're wrong. Target practice is a sport unto itself. It doesn't necessarily equate to practicing to kill someone, unless it's for self defense. And even then, that's a perfectly legitimate action under the laws of deadly force.

If guns are "designed to kill", they aren't doing a very good job of fulfilling their purpose. The BATF estimates there are 250 million guns in private ownership in America. And the FBI tells us there are about 7,000 firearms murders per year. When you compare those two statistics, you find out that only one out of every 35,000 guns is actually used to kill someone. Actually, even fewer than that, since some guns are used to kill more than one person. Thus, 99.997% of all guns are not used to commit murder. So for every murder that occurs, would it be your position that the other 34,999 guns which were _not_ used to commit murder, are being misused or under-utilized? And why are all these people buying guns that they never use for their "intended purpose"?

So, using your own argument, since 99.997% of all guns are not used to kill someone, then their "purpose" must not be "to kill".

[Kennedy 0]

Show me one shred of evidence stating the NRA took up the KKK's crusade. Show me one piece of scientific research or analysis showing their goals have anything in common.

Quote

The National Riffles Association, dedicated to keeping guns in the hands of gun owners and fighting any form of limitation restraint or control, was founded the same year that the bunch o' bedsheet wearing, negro hangin, shotgun weilding hicks were outlawed and disbanned.

"fighting any form of limitation or restraint" That would mean they're against keeping guns from "negros," wouldn't it?

Quote

Now I'll humour you a moment and pretend like there's no connection. Do you not think many of the Brand Spankin' New members of the Brand Spankin' New Gun Club might have come from under a few of those bed sheets?

I think you meant disbanded. And I have news for you. The KKK is still alive and spewing their own brand of hate. The bedsheets never left, they just got folded up.

Not too many KKK members would have been fond of a 'gun club' founded by a Yankee general in cooperation with a Yankee president, don't you think?

(ps - the check spelling button is really quite handy.)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Why does one denote the other? I wish kallend were as interested in rebuffing your poor arguments as some others.

If my argument is so poor. Why don't you rebuf it?

Quote

If you limit guns to those of the time-period, why not all other tools and machines? They foresaw change, and they gave us what we needed to cope with it.

I never said I would want to limit guns to those of that time period. so I am don't know what you are trying to say. I recommend reading before posting.

The automobile, printing press and the computer and internet were not invented nor designed primarily to kill people. Thta makes those items different. You cannot compare apples to oranges and expect a valid argument.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

nuclear arms, chemical arms etc. Hence I would assume that the Bill of Rights does not give you the right to bare (sic) all arms?

"Arms", in this case, has been interpreted by the courts to mean a weapon that can be operated by a single individual. Thus, things like nukes and crew-served weapons such as cannons and tanks are not considered to be covered by the 2nd Amendment.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

"Arms", in this case, has been interpreted by the courts to mean a weapon that can be operated by a single individual. Thus, things like nukes and crew-served weapons such as cannons and tanks are not considered to be covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Ok, then how about a simple dynomite or plastics bomb. Or how about a dirty bomb or a bomb with a chemical agent. All of those are weapons which can easily be operated by a single individual. Are they covered by the 2nd amendment?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the average foot soldier really carries a very small number of arms. I am sure the NRA would not really stand for that large of a restriction. The average footsoldier does not carry a magnum .44.

Many soldiers carry handguns. One handgun is pretty much the same as any other.

And if you make what soldiers carry the standard by which civilian ownership rights are determined, then why are the so-called "assault weapons" banned? That's exactly what the soldiers carry.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

That still doesn't prove it makes it a better place to live either.

He was refuting your statement that guns' value for self defense argument is bull$hit, not saying concealed carry makes a state a better place to live.

But if you check the studies, states with shall issue and no license laws do have lower crime rates. Makes them sound a bit nicer in my book.

Quote

you said: "But honestly, what does someone need a hand-gun for? Give me one reason someone needs a hand-gun... And don't just say "to protect themselves". That's bullshit."

(ps - the check spelling button is quite handy)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Ok, then when is a judge, or any person for that matter, right?

What's "right" is always open to interpretation. Even the Supreme Court has been wrong before, such as in the Dred Scott decision, in which a slave sued for his freedom, and lost.

Quote

Though one could ensure adequate protection for one self by training martial arts and sometimes some advance planning and common sense or maybe even using a knife.

Nope. My mom is 77 years old and can barely walk because of a stroke. She can't save herself through martial arts or knife-fighting. But a gun makes her the equal of any intruder that breaks into her home.

What you are suggesting would revert back to the laws of the jungle - only the strongest would survive. And that's usually the criminals, because they choose weaker people to attack.

Quote

Hence, guns do not have to a part of the rights under the Bill of Rights. It does not say in the Bill of Rights that americans will be allowed to carry along guns of all types?

Huh? Yes it does - it says "arms". It doesn't list specific types by name, type and caliber.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Many soldiers carry handguns. One handgun is pretty much the same as any other.

And if you make what soldiers carry the standard by which civilian ownership rights are determined, then why are the so-called "assault weapons" banned? That's exactly what the soldiers carry.

I agree completely with you. Someone else posted that the interpretation was made that people had the right to bear arms carried by the average footsoldier. My question was, what does the average footsoldier carry. The answer was an M16. Hence, my question was, would it not be fair to state then that the US citizen has the right to carry an M16 but nothing else, since that is what would follow from that stated interpretation.

If you say that the average footsoldier carries a handgun, then fine. All US citizens are allowed to carry a handgun similar in size and force to those carried by the average footsoldier, but nothing else. Since that is what would follow from that interpretation.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

If you limit guns to those of the time-period, why not all other tools and machines? They foresaw change, and they gave us what we needed to cope with it.

I never said I would want to limit guns to those of that time period. so I am don't know what you are trying to say. I recommend reading before posting.

The automobile, printing press and the computer and internet were not invented nor designed primarily to kill people. Thta makes those items different. You cannot compare apples to oranges and expect a valid argument.

You said the firearms of today should not fall under the second amendment because of greater capacity. I asked why the greater capacity of other objects should not exempt them from other amendments.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

They carry a suitable weapon for their task. Sometimes it is a rifle, or a machine gun, or a handgun, or a shotgun or a combination of them. For close quarters fighting, a shot gun. For open range, rifle, for max firepower, a machine gun, for concealability and portability, a handgun. I'm required by law to conceal my gun when carrying it in public. I CAN'T carry it in the open. So, handgun is the only option.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

He was refuting your statement that guns' value for self defense argument is bull$hit,

I never made that statement. Once again, as in my previous reply to you, I recommend actually reading the posts.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


you said: "But honestly, what does someone need a hand-gun for? Give me one reason someone needs a hand-gun... And don't just say "to protect themselves". That's bullshit."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say that, nor does that link point to a post I made. Once again, please read the posts before you hit that button.