Total Gun-Ban worked...

[bmcd308 0]

Quote

To be somewhat sarcastic, I lump all gun owners together in regards to my safety because I can't be shot by someone that doesn't have a gun. I can be shot by someone that does.

If your fear is of being shot, then your arguments make sense. If your fear is of dying or being seriously injured, then they do not.

People who are out to rape, maim and kill will do it regardless of the availability of a certain tool. They will find a firearm illegally (since the cost to them of getting caught will be low) or use a substitute tool, or no tool at all.

Remember that Cain killed Abel with a rock.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[skreamer 1]

My countrymen? I might have been living in the UK for the last 6 years but I do still consider myself South African. I doubt too many South Africans would be terrified to touch a rifle. But then again South Africa does have the world's highest murder rate...

Despite your paranoid delusions of the predators hunting me, I feel quite safe not owning a firearm here in the UK. If I had to live somewhere where the only way I could feel safe would be to carry a fire-arm, well then I would really have to wonder whether that was a place worth living.

I've been living in London the 'crime capital' of the UK for 6 years now. This includes first living in Harlesden (the UK 'murder capital') when I came to London. I also lived in Dublin for a short time in a suburb called Inchicore. At no time did I feel unsafe (but then again I am fairly sensible about where and when I go out). The best way to avoid trouble is not to get into it in the first place - unfortunately there are probably a lot of John Wayne types out there who seem to relish the opportunity to get into some trouble so that they can 'ventilate' somebody and live out their little Lone Ranger fantasies. Sad...

Just like oversized cars I often suspect that guns are a pretty lame way of overcompensating for some personality (or physical!) deficiency...

Will

[bmcd308 0]

Quote

States Rights!!

I think this argument turned out to be a loser in 1865, although I am curious to watch how this plays out.

I wonder if the San Fran city cops will take up arms to defend the city's stash of weed from the armed DEA agents who come to take it. That would be an awkward moment in American law enforcement.

Brent

Edit to correct grammar.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[Guest]

Quote

>If, however, you don't believe in the Almighty, that means you don't
> believe in inalienable rights, because, after all, where do those
> rights come from?

It is possible to believe that all people have fundamental rights without believing in an omnisicent, omnipotent, somewhat humanoid male deity.

>Why are they here? Because a piece of paper says so???

If you truly believe that ALL people have inherent rights, and they were not given to us by a piece of paper, then surely every war we have ever fought is wrong - for everyone has a right to life (and to due process before it is taken away from them.) And as far as I can remember, no one put any of the 350,000 innocent people in Hiroshima or Nagasaki on trial.

Or you could believe that the consitution and the bill of rights just apply to the US, that they are just pieces of paper, written by men, that we base our system of government on. Since it's just a document it can be, and has been, modified. It has even been modified incorrectly and modified back again. Surely if it was a 'divine document' such things would not be happening.

I happen to think that it works pretty well as a basis for government, but it is based far more on the Articles of Confederation and the Magna Carta than on any religious theme.

Parts of your argument are codified in the Bible. The Commandment "Thou shalt Not Kill" is pretty simple (after all, a humorist remarked, they're not called "The Ten Suggestions" - ).

Until one consults Biblical scholars. In some versions of the Bible (NIV, for example, if memory serves), that commandment reads "You shall not commit murder". Some scholars also hold this to mean that fighting as a soldier and killing an enemy are acceptable (not that men should do evil so that good may result, but to prevent still greater evil from occurring), but there are those like the Quakers, and the Amish, who read that to mean any kind of killing for any reason (humans, of course. The Bible says it's okay to eat critters. Both the Old and the New Testaments support this [read the Book of Acts, Ch 10 for more info])

I was suggesting that if the rights are not devine and simply came out of thin air, then they could just as easily disappear into same. By assigning divine attribution the the rights, the Founders were acting as men of their times. Those rights shouldn't change, just because the times have.

For me to say that "if you're an atheist, you don't believe in fundamental human rights" was a gross oversimplification and I stand corrected.

And yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, but think of how many more lives would have been lost on both sides had the war continued to be fought conventionally. The fanatically suicidal Japanese were fighting like wildcats for every square inch of remote islands in the Pacific - how much more ferociously would they have fought and died for their homeland? Better for all that it ended the way it did.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Yet I, unlike some, do not advocate the curtailing of individual rights of
all based upon the misconduct of the few.

So you don't support searches at airports without cause, or the indefinite detention without counsel of those whom AG Ashcroft suspects of being terrorists or associates of terrorists, or the new powers of the government to monitor your e-mail, credit card use etc. without warrant? And there I was thinking you were a Republican.

Conservative Libertarian Republican.

So there...

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[bmcd308 0]

Quote

Just like oversized cars I often suspect that guns are a pretty lame way of overcompensating for some personality (or physical!) deficiency...

Uh oh. I think I'm probably pretty low on somebody's list...

Brent
(who drives a 2002 Chevrolet Tahoe and buys ammo direct from the distributor)

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[flyingferret 0]

I think it is far from over, but it is nice to see someone being constructive. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html
I am what some might say a very strong conservative, economically and socially, but I think some of the most recent measures taken under the Bush Admin are going too far.

However.....we were supposed to be talking about gun control

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[skreamer 1]

lol

Don't worry dude, I don't think anybodies guessed you have a small penis...

[billvon 3,092]

>States Rights!! That is right, the beauty of a republic of independent states.

Interestingly, the original articles of confederation (i.e. the 'constitution' of the US before the constitutional convention) was all about state's rights - the confederation was a very loose congress of representatives that existed primarily to ensure a solid military.

When the constitutional convention was planned (pushed hard by Madison, a strong-government proponent) Samuel Adams (yes, of beer fame) disagreed with the idea of a stronger government. Patrick Henry refused to go, claiming "I smell a rat." He later wrote of the proposed constitution:

"I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain."

[Guest]

Quote

unfortunately there are probably a lot of John Wayne types out there who seem to relish the opportunity to get into some trouble so that they can 'ventilate' somebody and live out their little Lone Ranger fantasies. Sad...

Does putting a firearm into one's hand make one a criminal? Does my ownership of a computer make me a "hacker"? (incorrect media term).

If I gave you a semiautomatic pistol, would you immediately go out and knock off a pizza joint?

Would you even be tempted?

Once again, I'm seeing "evil attributes" being granted to inanimate objects.

How about if I gave you a Lamborghini? Would you be tempted to blasting up the M5 (I know I would), or wouldn't you act responsibly and take it to a track where you could open it up without risk to anyone else?

I think it's human agency and the capcity of mankind to do evil that is truly at issue here.

I've never heard of a firearm that got off a table and shot somebody.

As for guns and danger, and the avoidance thereof, believe it or not, I'm mostly with you - I believe that by and large, a man should live by his wits, and not look to an inanimate hunk of metal for his manhood.

But for those whose backs are against the wall, and who have no alternative, and can be assured that no help is coming ("The cavalry doesn't come over the hill in the nick of time anymore, Mr. Spock") I support the fundamental human right of people to defend themselves.

BTW - Why don't you live in South Africa anymore? "One Settler - One Bullet", if I recall.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[flyingferret 0]

Yes, I agree. There is a precarious balance. But at least it is good to see checks and balances in action against each other.

We could start another whole history thread to debate the beginnings of the US.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yet I, unlike some, do not advocate the curtailing of individual rights of
all based upon the misconduct of the few.

So you don't support searches at airports without cause, or the indefinite detention without counsel of those whom AG Ashcroft suspects of being terrorists or associates of terrorists, or the new powers of the government to monitor your e-mail, credit card use etc. without warrant? And there I was thinking you were a Republican.

Conservative Libertarian Republican.

So there...

We agree on something then, I'm a liberal Libertarian

I assume you don't agree with any of the actions I listed above.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,092]

>Until one consults Biblical scholars.

The old testament is full of examples of when you can and can't kill someone, even plenty of examples of god telling people to kill other people. Nowadays we call such people extremist terrorists. Needless to say I do not believe that 'killing for god' is such a good idea.

>I was suggesting that if the rights are not devine and simply came
> out of thin air, then they could just as easily disappear into same.

They could; it is only by our belief in them (and support of them) that they persist.

>By assigning divine attribution the the rights, the Founders were
> acting as men of their times. Those rights shouldn't change, just
> because the times have.

They have changed. The constitution changed the articles of confederation. The bill of rights changed the constitution. Later amendments (27 in all) changed it still further. The very article you seem to cherish (the second one) was an amendment to the constitution, not part of the original constitution.

This is how it should be. Times change. The original constitution required anyone who found an escaped slave to return it to its owner. Surely you do not claim that that one should still be in force!

>And yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, but think of how
> many more lives would have been lost on both sides had the war
> continued to be fought conventionally.

And think of how many american lives could have been saved if we simply imprisoned all arabs in the US before 9/11. Fortunately, we do not do such things to our own citizens. It is clear that we do not apply the same standards to foreigners. (at least until recently.)

>Better for all that it ended the way it did.

I think that's a lot easier to say than to live. Most of the third of a million people who died did so from radiation and thermal burns, over the course of a year. The nuclear bombs, the firebombing of civilian cities - I would hesitate to call that 'better for all' although it was certainly better for the US.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yet I, unlike some, do not advocate the curtailing of individual rights of
all based upon the misconduct of the few.

So you don't support searches at airports without cause, or the indefinite detention without counsel of those whom AG Ashcroft suspects of being terrorists or associates of terrorists, or the new powers of the government to monitor your e-mail, credit card use etc. without warrant? And there I was thinking you were a Republican.

Conservative Libertarian Republican.

So there...

We agree on something then, I'm a liberal Libertarian

I assume you don't agree with any of the actions I listed above.

No, I most emphatically do not.

A lot of people don't realize that the Federal government has been doing this for a long time at US ports of entry (I used to work for US Customs).

You see, when you enter a US Port of Entry, you enter an international treaty no-man's-land. Until you clear Customs (and Immigration and USDA), you are no longer in the country you came from, but you aren't in the US either. Your ass belongs to Uncle Sam until they decide to let you go. It isn't until you cross the threshold and exit the portal that you become a citizen again, and are no longer subject to Federal jurisdiction and control. Commit a petty offense in the terminal or airport proper, and you'll be turned over to the city cops. Break the law in the Portal, and you're going to meet a Federal Magistrate, because any offense on Federal territory, however small, is by definition a felony, and will be handled as such.

Now the Feds want to make the entire airport system Federal territory, where your rights as a citizen are as meaningless as they are in the Customs Portal.

I tell you, it's chilling.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[skreamer 1]

Quote

BTW - Why don't you live in South Africa anymore? "One Settler - One Bullet", if I recall.

Did you miss the part where I wrote the following :

Quote

If I had to live somewhere where the only way I could feel safe would be to carry a fire-arm, well then I would really have to wonder whether that was a place worth living.

Of course I do also have purely selfish motives in that I get paid more money doing my job here (and pay less taxes) than I would in South Africa. Basically more money for me means more money for skydiving.

[Jib 0]

Quote

>States Rights!! That is right, the beauty of a republic of independent states.

Interestingly, the original articles of confederation (i.e. the 'constitution' of the US before the constitutional convention) was all about state's rights - the confederation was a very loose congress of representatives that existed primarily to ensure a solid military.

When the constitutional convention was planned (pushed hard by Madison, a strong-government proponent) Samuel Adams (yes, of beer fame) disagreed with the idea of a stronger government. Patrick Henry refused to go, claiming "I smell a rat." He later wrote of the proposed constitution:

"I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain."

When the Bill of Rights was written, the founding fathers were scared of a tyranical government having too much power and taking away freedoms of the people, again. So, they spelled out certain rights, speech, religion, press... and that included the right to bear arms. A right doesn't do much good without a means to protect it by defending oneself from both criminals and the government (look to Germany in the 30's stripping guns first and then all of those rights).

I bet here in the U.S. most people feel safer if a police officer is around. Is the uniform a deterrent? Because they have a gun? Because they spent some time in police academy learning to handle a gun? I know several people who have more firearms training and shoot far better than an average cop. Why should you feel unsafe if they are around? If they carry a gun? Or anyone else for that matter who done nothing to suggest that they might commit a crime, let alone one with a gun?

I'm confused to about what they purpose of gun control. Are we trying to protect kids from accidental death or adults from themselves? There's nothing that says that you have to own a gun, but there are plenty of laws requiring you to be responsible if you do. That includes keeping them away from young children. There is a program, rejected by many schools that teaches children what to do if they find a gun: "STOP! Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an Adult." That can't be taught because it's too controversial: the NRA created it. Did you know that most cops are NRA members?

I guess since no one is responsible for anything anymore, no one could possibly be responsible enough to bear arms; so, big brother must take them away.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Quote

>States Rights!! That is right, the beauty of a republic of independent states.

Interestingly, the original articles of confederation (i.e. the 'constitution' of the US before the constitutional convention) was all about state's rights - the confederation was a very loose congress of representatives that existed primarily to ensure a solid military.

When the constitutional convention was planned (pushed hard by Madison, a strong-government proponent) Samuel Adams (yes, of beer fame) disagreed with the idea of a stronger government. Patrick Henry refused to go, claiming "I smell a rat." He later wrote of the proposed constitution:

"I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain."

When the Bill of Rights was written, the founding fathers were scared of a tyranical government having too much power and taking away freedoms of the people, again. So, they spelled out certain rights, speech, religion, press... and that included the right to bear arms. A right doesn't do much good without a means to protect it by defending oneself from both criminals and the government (look to Germany in the 30's stripping guns first and then all of those rights).

I bet here in the U.S. most people feel safer if a police officer is around. Is the uniform a deterrent? Because they have a gun? Because they spent some time in police academy learning to handle a gun? I know several people who have more firearms training and shoot far better than an average cop. Why should you feel unsafe if they are around? If they carry a gun? Or anyone else for that matter who done nothing to suggest that they might commit a crime, let alone one with a gun?

I'm confused to about what they purpose of gun control. Are we trying to protect kids from accidental death or adults from themselves? There's nothing that says that you have to own a gun, but there are plenty of laws requiring you to be responsible if you do. That includes keeping them away from young children. There is a program, rejected by many schools that teaches children what to do if they find a gun: "STOP! Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an Adult." That can't be taught because it's too controversial: the NRA created it. Did you know that most cops are NRA members?

I guess since no one is responsible for anything anymore, no one could possibly be responsible enough to bear arms; so, big brother must take them away.

I think the solution is simple:

The 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says. Any adult who wishes has a right to a weapon (the Constitution clearly allows exclusion of children, felons, etc. so that's not a problem). Those who avail themselves of this right have implicitly agreed to being part of a well regulated militia.
Since nothing can be regulated if you don't know what it is, being well regulated obviously must involve registration. Also, an untrained militia is dangerous and useless, so training must be involved.

So all gun owners should register with the state, and turn out for training one weekend a month.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,092]

>When the Bill of Rights was written, the founding fathers were scared
> of a tyranical government having too much power and taking away
> freedoms of the people, again.

Well, no. As a result of the fear of a tyrannical government, they adopted the articles of confederation, as mentioned above. The 'preamble' if you will:

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

Each state could set its own laws however it chose with respect to gun ownership etc.

Around 12 years later, things weren't working so well. The new economy wasn't working out, and people wanted to DO SOMETHING! So a bigger, more protective government was clearly called for. Thus the Constitutional Convention, and the Constitution. Not all the founding fathers liked the idea, though.

A year or so later, people began to worry about giving the government too much power - so they passed the bill of rights, the third change to the government of the US since it was established as an entity by the declaration of independence. So it was after both a weak, power-to-the-states government was set up, then discarded for a 'tyrannical' powerful government. Patrick Henry said this about the new constitution:

"Is this a monarchy like England, compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the latter? Is this a confederacy like Holland--an association a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is surely not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely.

"Is it necessary for your liberty, that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system, Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings, gave us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else!"

So in a way, some of the founding fathers set up that tyrannical government they claimed to have rebelled against a decade before - at least according to some of the _other_ founding fathers.

And I find it funny that arguments from the NRA, supposedly supporting the constitution, sound remarkably like arguments _against_ that very constitution 200 years ago.

>Why should you feel unsafe if they are around? If they carry a gun?
> Or anyone else for that matter who done nothing to suggest that
> they might commit a crime, let alone one with a gun?

I don't feel safe around any competent person who carries a gun. I do indeed feel unsafe when I am near a fool, a drunk or a criminal who carries a gun. I suspect most people do.

>I'm confused to about what they purpose of gun control. Are we
> trying to protect kids from accidental death or adults from
> themselves?

Personally, protecting children is very high on my list. I don't care one bit about protecting a fool's life - if he shoots himself with his own gun, well, that's sad, but it was his choice to screw around with it. I do care about protecting other people from the use of guns in crime, indeed from protecting other people (including me) from any sort of crime.

>I guess since no one is responsible for anything anymore, no one
> could possibly be responsible enough to bear arms; so, big brother
> must take them away.

I think most people _should_ be allowed to own guns. (Exceptions are children, criminals and the mentally unstable.) If you demonstrate that you cannot own one responsibly (i.e. it gets stolen and used in a crime, or you accidentally shoot out your neighbor's window) then you lose that right.