kelpdiver 2 #76 July 28, 2004 Quote As for judicial rulings, you are incorrect. If not, then my Florida divorce is only good in Florida, and Texas wouldn't also consider me to be divorced. And I'm not about to go through another divorce proceeding just to convince Texas. Likewise, a wanted felon from one state, can be arrested by other states, held, and extradited. Examples of such recognition of other state's judicial findings abound. I'm sure you're well aware that the rulings of the 9th Circuit are quite different from say the rules of the 5th Circuit. Until and unless the SC decides which one is right, each are binding on the states within their region. Rulings within the state court aren't binding either. Sure your divorce would be accepted, but you wouldn't be able to cite California's right to privacy (clearly written in the state Constitution) and confirmed by the state courts as a defense for some incident in your state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #77 July 28, 2004 QuoteFirst of all, this whole thing doesn't really affect me, so there is no point to prove, hence no straws to grasp. Just trying to have a decent conversation about it. would seem though, that when views opposite yours are presented, it automatically is taken as an attack. You have a past history of going against many issues in the US....Why should we look at this one just as "Polite" discussion? QuoteThere are many ways you can measure self regulation. USPA does it. I am sure the NRA could be quite good at it too. The USPA only gives sugestions...No one HAS to listen to them...The NRA would be the same. Plus the Anti-Gun crowd does not listen to anything the NRA does anyway, and would not support anything the NRA does. So the NRA could do nothing. QuoteWhat I don't understand is people on this forum who desperately want canopy flying much more regulated to protect people from themselves. Yet, have problems with regulations that would protect people from themselves, but more importantly would try and protect the innocent bystander. Where have I said I don't agree with some control over the right to carry? Find it. As for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. Quotebut more importantly would try and protect the innocent bystander Find me cases of an INNOCENT bystander being hurt by a person with a CCW. Go ahead, I'll wait.................................(BTW they kid geting shot while vandalizing the guys house...guess what? He is not innocent.) QuoteI am not discussing banning guns. I am trying to understand what would be so wrong with nation wide mandatory annual proficiency testing to own a gun? Because our Constitution says we can have them without the testing. Its a right that we have. Now I don't mind a proficiency test for a CCW...But not every year, and it would have to be a fair test and not one made so hard that a person could not pass it. If the left had a choice they would make it so hard that no one could pass....Thus preventing people from getting a CCW. It should not be as hard as the one police have to pass....cause with the police it is their JOB. It seems to me that enough idiots on here bitch about us wanting to make them pass a test to fly a High WL...I find it funny that they think its OK to allow tests in other areas since those areas don't effect them. I LIKE the idea of testing to prove what you can do...Under canopy, with a gun ect....But as shown on here there are enough idiots that will oppose anything but what they want."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #78 July 28, 2004 QuoteAs for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? QuoteFind me cases of an INNOCENT bystander being hurt by a person with a CCW. Go ahead, I'll wait.................................(BTW they kid geting shot while vandalizing the guys house...guess what? He is not innocent.) If he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? QuoteI LIKE the idea of testing to prove what you can do...Under canopy, with a gun ect....But as shown on here there are enough idiots that will oppose anything but what they want. Could not agree with you more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #79 July 28, 2004 Quotewhat would be so wrong with nation wide mandatory annual proficiency testing to own a gun? Because testing implies that government is in charge, and that a fee would have to be charged to administer the test, and that some percentage of people will be failed, thereby denying them their Constitutional right to gun ownership. So the problem is the same as if you were to test people before allowing them to vote, or to worship in a church, or to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. Poll taxes were ruled illegal for this very reason - the right to vote cannot be infringed with taxes or tests. Neither should other Constitutional rights, including gun ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #80 July 28, 2004 Quote If he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? Quote Was he tresspassing? Was he vandalizing? Well, then he shouldn't have been there. One thing is BLATANTLY obvious - if he was doing what he was supposed to be doing then he wouldn't have gotten shot. Right?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #81 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Thats ONE way of looking at it...The argument you are referring to was if the right to bear arms was for the right to be concealed. Not for the righ to carry. I don't care if I have to hide it, or I can wear it on a holster wild west style....I only care that my rights according to the Constitution are intact. Now it would be MUCH safer if they were concealed. It would be harder for a criminal to tell who had one, and it would be harder to have a criminal take one away. The Constitition is clear...We have the right to have weapons. If the States want to limit the right to carry....Well thats the states right. But the Constitution says we can have them. And the Constitiution should over ride a State's choice. No where in the Constitution does it say Felons can't carry...But I agree they should not be allowed...I also think Felons should not be allowed to vote. I don't want a known criminal carrying a weapon, or voting. QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Find me cases of an INNOCENT bystander being hurt by a person with a CCW. Go ahead, I'll wait.................................(BTW they kid geting shot while vandalizing the guys house...guess what? He is not innocent.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? Being shot might be taking it to far...But he should not be breaking the law. He was not innocent, he was breaking the law. I'm still waiting for yo to show me a case where an innocent person was killed by a guy with a CCW. Here is a case where a CCW could have helped. QuoteDr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp was raised in Friendswood, Texas with her older brother Allan and younger sister, Erika. Suzanna attended the University of Texas at El Paso and Texas Chiropractic College, graduating with a Doctor of Chiropractic degree in 1985. Dr. Hupp moved to Central Texas in 1987 where, for thirteen years, she owned and operated the Cove Physical Rehab clinic before selling it in 2000. Suzanna is recognized worldwide as one of the leading advocates for an individual's right to carry a concealed weapon. In 1991, after leaving her gun in her car in order to comply with the law, Suzanna watched helplessly as both her parents, along with 21 others were gunned down in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. As a survivor of this tragedy, her impassioned calls for the right of citizens to self-defense have thrust her into the national debate on the right to keep and bear arms. Since the Killeen massacre, she has testified numerous times across the country for the restoration of the Second Amendment. She has been quoted in US News and World Report, the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, Texas Monthly, People, and has been featured on 48 Hours, Peter Jennings’ World News Tonight, Dan Rather’s CBS Evening News, and many others. Suzanna's efforts in this arena were recognized when she was awarded the Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award by the National Rifle Association. In 1998, Charleton Heston honored her as the first Texan to be awarded a lifetime membership to the NRA While you could debate the right to own a gun....This situation would most likley have been better if she, and others had weapons. The 9/11 hijackers would not have been able to hijack 4 planes with knives if people on board had weapons. I think that Americans have the right to own weapons...Of any type they want. They should be allowed to carry concealed as long as they can prove they are safe (Just like anyone should be allowed to jump whatever they want as long as they can PROVE they are safe). And anyone that uses a gun, or commits any act of violence should be punished HARD. Less people are killed by guns that other forms of violence."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #82 July 28, 2004 QuoteLess people are killed by guns that other forms of violence. Gotta correct that, a gun is an inanimate object. "Less people are killed by 'people using guns' than other forms of violence" Or the snaggletooth version, . "Less people are killed with bullets shot from guns than other forms of violence." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #83 July 28, 2004 QuoteOne thing is BLATANTLY obvious - if he was doing what he was supposed to be doing then he wouldn't have gotten shot. Right? That argument is a touch too simple in my book. Since it would be just as easy to reply, that it is BLATANTLY obvious the boy would not have been dead if the man did not have a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #84 July 28, 2004 Most of your points are well taken, Ron, eventhough I may not agree with all of them. I have never even held a gun, ever in my life. I wouldn't mind trying it once. I am however happy, that I have been lucky enough in life to have lived and continue to live in societies where we generally do not feel the need to arm ourselves for protection. I guess in a lot of ways, this all comes down to cultural differences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #85 July 28, 2004 Maybe that books needs editing. This guy is someone's yard at night trying to steal, the homeowner looks out sees something strange from the guy, and simply shoots the intrude because he feared that he was in danger. Maybe you are not looking at the possibility that the homeowner was where he is supposed to be safe, and the thief was simply not. Have you considered that option at all?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #86 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteOne thing is BLATANTLY obvious - if he was doing what he was supposed to be doing then he wouldn't have gotten shot. Right? That argument is a touch too simple in my book. Since it would be just as easy to reply, that it is BLATANTLY obvious the boy would not have been dead if the man did not have a gun. So you are in a sense advocating crime. If this is a deterrent to someone that wants to fuck with my house - so beit - I wasn't the one that was doing wrong. The gun owner wasn't the one doing wrong. It was the fucup that was there doing the vandalism that - albeit didn't deserve death for the crime - was dealt a hand and it was a harsh one. Too Bad. He shouldn't have been there.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #87 July 28, 2004 QuoteI have never even held a gun, ever in my life. I wouldn't mind trying it once Well if you are in FL...Look me up.. I have plenty. In fact just Saturday I was walking out from the Tunnel and a guy was drooling over my car. He was all excited and started asking me questions. I handed him the keys. I had to talk him into driving it...But he loved it. Drove it like a wussy-boy however. I then took him for a ride driving like a lunatic taking corners sprint car style.... His wife made me pose for pictures with him and the car, and she said it was the highlight of his trip to drive my car...He just stood there nodding and drooling. Man I could not live like that. I'm glad I live in a country where we have fast cars, gun rights, and cheap porn."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,174 #88 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteLess people are killed by guns that other forms of violence. Gotta correct that, a gun is an inanimate object. "Less people are killed by 'people using guns' than other forms of violence" Or the snaggletooth version, . "Less people are killed with bullets shot from guns than other forms of violence." If you really want accuracy, it should be "Fewer people...."... 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 peacefuljeffrey 0 #89 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe USPA is not law. I understand that, though we as a group generally have no problem with some form of self-regulation. You of all people want to puch that further when it comes to canopies. Then why would it be too much to ask for gun owners to do some self regulation and require proficient training and recurrency training? Why would that be a bad idea? Because we already know from experience that if we let that situation arise, there are those who are rabidly against our right to keep and bear arms, and they would attempt to commandeer the "required proficiency training and recurrency training" system to make it impossibly difficult to pass, and that would become a de facto ban. We already know what these people get up to. They are NOT good-faith actors. --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 peacefuljeffrey 0 #90 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Yes, and someone arguing your side of this issue (guns, at least) opposed it, saying that mostly it is not viewed that way anymore. That person was Kallend, I believe. --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 peacefuljeffrey 0 #91 July 28, 2004 Quote[QuoteFind me cases of an INNOCENT bystander being hurt by a person with a CCW. Go ahead, I'll wait.................................(BTW they kid geting shot while vandalizing the guys house...guess what? He is not innocent.) If he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? In the confusion of an abnormal situation like that, the kid was "guilty" in the sense that he had brought down upon himself the unnecessary circumstance of having someone suspect that he may be a dire threat. Nothing required the kid to be showing up after midnight to vandalize a house or pull pranks. It is fair of a homeowner/defender to be afraid for his life when something so aberrant is going down. So while the kid is not "guilty" enough to warrant being shot to death, neither is the defender "guilty" of doing something wrong, because the whole situation must be judged based on "what did he reasonably have cause to fear was happening at the moment it was happening." The whole case happened because of -- was engendered by -- the faulty choices made by the kid. --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 PhillyKev 0 #92 July 28, 2004 QuoteIf he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? In our justice system, at least, there's a third option that you ommtted. Not guilty. When someone is found not guilty, that doesn't prove they are innocent. It just indicates there wasn't enough proof to determine they are guilty beyond a resonable doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #93 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteOne thing is BLATANTLY obvious - if he was doing what he was supposed to be doing then he wouldn't have gotten shot. Right? That argument is a touch too simple in my book. Since it would be just as easy to reply, that it is BLATANTLY obvious the boy would not have been dead if the man did not have a gun. But leaving the situation at a point where the man DOES have a gun but the kid DOESN'T go around pulling late-night vandalism raids would still enable the guy to have a gun to defend himself against real attackers AND the kid would still be un-shot. Taking the gun from the guy leaves the kid safe, yes, but leaves the guy without his means of defense. So if you want the kid to be safe and don't want to also trample the guy's right to keep himself safe, the simplest answer is "don't do the actions that bait people who do have guns into shooting you." Some guy decides that every time he wants to cross a street, he refuses to look both ways and wait until it's safe. Now along comes a woman who hits him because he just walks right out into 40 mph traffic on Main Street. You could argue in favor of taking away her car so that she never could have hit him -- but that would punish her even under normal circumstances. Or you could say, "She wouldn't hit a guy even having a car if he would just do what's normal and not walk straight out into traffic." Why would this be different for guns? The guy with the gun still can have it for legitimate uses. --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 peacefuljeffrey 0 #94 July 28, 2004 QuoteMost of your points are well taken, Ron, eventhough I may not agree with all of them. I have never even held a gun, ever in my life. I wouldn't mind trying it once. I am however happy, that I have been lucky enough in life to have lived and continue to live in societies where we generally do not feel the need to arm ourselves for protection. I guess in a lot of ways, this all comes down to cultural differences. All the more reason you should recuse yourself from judging whether others are justified when they determine they feel the need to arm themselves for protection. Do you not recognize that some people do NOT live in the relatively safe and luxurious circumstances that you do, in which you feel no pressing need to stand ready to defend against criminal attack? Some people DO live in shitty areas; some people DO live so far from the quick response of authorities that if they were being home-invaded, it would come down to them alone to fight for their lives because the police are half an hour away. So since you don't know at all what that might be like, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the need or desire for a gun for protection, or to suggest that we all jump through bureaucratic hoops to enjoy that right. --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 juanesky 0 #95 July 28, 2004 Quotewasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Is that a new verb or is it missing an "S"?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #96 July 28, 2004 QuoteThe point is (you keep seeming to miss it) that if you check the arrest/conviction rates of CCW holders, and compare it to that of the overall population, CCW holders bring the average DOWN. That speaks nothing but good of CCW holders. It means that the whole population could learn about civility, safety and law-abidingness from those who are carrying guns! Correlation is not causation. Those people were bringing the average down before they got CCWs. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,174 #97 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Yes, and someone arguing your side of this issue (guns, at least) opposed it, saying that mostly it is not viewed that way anymore. That person was Kallend, I believe. - Eh? What? I haven't been following this thread closely, but just to clarify: I have no objection to law abiding citizens having guns. Even BIG ones. I choose not to own one myself because I don't want the hassle and I have no need. I believe the Xth amendment has been rendered meaningless and the people de facto only have the rights explicitly given to them and the government is encroaching even there, and I think this is a BAD thing.... 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 kelpdiver 2 #98 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? The notion is that you have freedom up to the point where it interferes with the freedoms/rights of others. If a person abusing a Stiletto is only hurting themselves, then it would be ok. But I think a lot of people here would point to the risk it puts others at. (On that, arguing that his death would give the sport a bad name is not a valid argument). But in reality you do have the right to do whatever you want with a stiletto right now, provided you do it on your own. If you want to jump at a DZ, you may be subject to restrictions on your rights in exchange for the use of their planes and landing zones. Of course the whole notion of freedom to hurt yourself is pretty weak in America now, albeit not nearly as bad as in other nations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #99 July 29, 2004 QuoteAll the more reason you should recuse yourself from judging whether others are justified when they determine they feel the need to arm themselves for protection. Do you not recognize that some people do NOT live in the relatively safe and luxurious circumstances that you do, in which you feel no pressing need to stand ready to defend against criminal attack? Some people DO live in shitty areas; some people DO live so far from the quick response of authorities that if they were being home-invaded, it would come down to them alone to fight for their lives because the police are half an hour away. So since you don't know at all what that might be like, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the need or desire for a gun for protection, or to suggest that we all jump through bureaucratic hoops to enjoy that right. Ahh yes, the infamous, if you haven't been there you can't say anything about it, argument. Since you have never been president of the united states, you therefore should recuse yourself from making any comments on the job Bush is doing. Good or bad. Since you have not been to Iraq, you really should recuse yourself from making any statements regarding Iraq. Since you have never searched or found WMDs you really should not be making any comments about that. I can go on and on and on. That argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever though. Next, for those claiming the 16 year old was doing something that he shouldn't have been doing in the first place, so getting killed is his own fault. Any of you ever pulled a prank on some one. Like going over to their house and TPing their car, or anything similar like that. If your buddy ends up getting shot and killed doing that, would you still be saying the same thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #100 July 29, 2004 QuoteNext, for those claiming the 16 year old was doing something that he shouldn't have been doing in the first place, so getting killed is his own fault. Any of you ever pulled a prank on some one. Like going over to their house and TPing their car, or anything similar like that. If your buddy ends up getting shot and killed doing that, would you still be saying the same thing? It would suck, but ya know, I would understand. If you do stupid things, expect stupid things to happen to you. You have to look at the root cause of that accident....The root cause was not about a gun...The root cause was some kid breaking the law and doing something stupid. Blame the kid for his actions."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Ron 10 #81 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Thats ONE way of looking at it...The argument you are referring to was if the right to bear arms was for the right to be concealed. Not for the righ to carry. I don't care if I have to hide it, or I can wear it on a holster wild west style....I only care that my rights according to the Constitution are intact. Now it would be MUCH safer if they were concealed. It would be harder for a criminal to tell who had one, and it would be harder to have a criminal take one away. The Constitition is clear...We have the right to have weapons. If the States want to limit the right to carry....Well thats the states right. But the Constitution says we can have them. And the Constitiution should over ride a State's choice. No where in the Constitution does it say Felons can't carry...But I agree they should not be allowed...I also think Felons should not be allowed to vote. I don't want a known criminal carrying a weapon, or voting. QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Find me cases of an INNOCENT bystander being hurt by a person with a CCW. Go ahead, I'll wait.................................(BTW they kid geting shot while vandalizing the guys house...guess what? He is not innocent.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? Being shot might be taking it to far...But he should not be breaking the law. He was not innocent, he was breaking the law. I'm still waiting for yo to show me a case where an innocent person was killed by a guy with a CCW. Here is a case where a CCW could have helped. QuoteDr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp was raised in Friendswood, Texas with her older brother Allan and younger sister, Erika. Suzanna attended the University of Texas at El Paso and Texas Chiropractic College, graduating with a Doctor of Chiropractic degree in 1985. Dr. Hupp moved to Central Texas in 1987 where, for thirteen years, she owned and operated the Cove Physical Rehab clinic before selling it in 2000. Suzanna is recognized worldwide as one of the leading advocates for an individual's right to carry a concealed weapon. In 1991, after leaving her gun in her car in order to comply with the law, Suzanna watched helplessly as both her parents, along with 21 others were gunned down in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. As a survivor of this tragedy, her impassioned calls for the right of citizens to self-defense have thrust her into the national debate on the right to keep and bear arms. Since the Killeen massacre, she has testified numerous times across the country for the restoration of the Second Amendment. She has been quoted in US News and World Report, the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, Texas Monthly, People, and has been featured on 48 Hours, Peter Jennings’ World News Tonight, Dan Rather’s CBS Evening News, and many others. Suzanna's efforts in this arena were recognized when she was awarded the Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award by the National Rifle Association. In 1998, Charleton Heston honored her as the first Texan to be awarded a lifetime membership to the NRA While you could debate the right to own a gun....This situation would most likley have been better if she, and others had weapons. The 9/11 hijackers would not have been able to hijack 4 planes with knives if people on board had weapons. I think that Americans have the right to own weapons...Of any type they want. They should be allowed to carry concealed as long as they can prove they are safe (Just like anyone should be allowed to jump whatever they want as long as they can PROVE they are safe). And anyone that uses a gun, or commits any act of violence should be punished HARD. Less people are killed by guns that other forms of violence."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #82 July 28, 2004 QuoteLess people are killed by guns that other forms of violence. Gotta correct that, a gun is an inanimate object. "Less people are killed by 'people using guns' than other forms of violence" Or the snaggletooth version, . "Less people are killed with bullets shot from guns than other forms of violence." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #83 July 28, 2004 QuoteOne thing is BLATANTLY obvious - if he was doing what he was supposed to be doing then he wouldn't have gotten shot. Right? That argument is a touch too simple in my book. Since it would be just as easy to reply, that it is BLATANTLY obvious the boy would not have been dead if the man did not have a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #84 July 28, 2004 Most of your points are well taken, Ron, eventhough I may not agree with all of them. I have never even held a gun, ever in my life. I wouldn't mind trying it once. I am however happy, that I have been lucky enough in life to have lived and continue to live in societies where we generally do not feel the need to arm ourselves for protection. I guess in a lot of ways, this all comes down to cultural differences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #85 July 28, 2004 Maybe that books needs editing. This guy is someone's yard at night trying to steal, the homeowner looks out sees something strange from the guy, and simply shoots the intrude because he feared that he was in danger. Maybe you are not looking at the possibility that the homeowner was where he is supposed to be safe, and the thief was simply not. Have you considered that option at all?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #86 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteOne thing is BLATANTLY obvious - if he was doing what he was supposed to be doing then he wouldn't have gotten shot. Right? That argument is a touch too simple in my book. Since it would be just as easy to reply, that it is BLATANTLY obvious the boy would not have been dead if the man did not have a gun. So you are in a sense advocating crime. If this is a deterrent to someone that wants to fuck with my house - so beit - I wasn't the one that was doing wrong. The gun owner wasn't the one doing wrong. It was the fucup that was there doing the vandalism that - albeit didn't deserve death for the crime - was dealt a hand and it was a harsh one. Too Bad. He shouldn't have been there.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #87 July 28, 2004 QuoteI have never even held a gun, ever in my life. I wouldn't mind trying it once Well if you are in FL...Look me up.. I have plenty. In fact just Saturday I was walking out from the Tunnel and a guy was drooling over my car. He was all excited and started asking me questions. I handed him the keys. I had to talk him into driving it...But he loved it. Drove it like a wussy-boy however. I then took him for a ride driving like a lunatic taking corners sprint car style.... His wife made me pose for pictures with him and the car, and she said it was the highlight of his trip to drive my car...He just stood there nodding and drooling. Man I could not live like that. I'm glad I live in a country where we have fast cars, gun rights, and cheap porn."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #88 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteLess people are killed by guns that other forms of violence. Gotta correct that, a gun is an inanimate object. "Less people are killed by 'people using guns' than other forms of violence" Or the snaggletooth version, . "Less people are killed with bullets shot from guns than other forms of violence." If you really want accuracy, it should be "Fewer people...."... 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
peacefuljeffrey 0 #89 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe USPA is not law. I understand that, though we as a group generally have no problem with some form of self-regulation. You of all people want to puch that further when it comes to canopies. Then why would it be too much to ask for gun owners to do some self regulation and require proficient training and recurrency training? Why would that be a bad idea? Because we already know from experience that if we let that situation arise, there are those who are rabidly against our right to keep and bear arms, and they would attempt to commandeer the "required proficiency training and recurrency training" system to make it impossibly difficult to pass, and that would become a de facto ban. We already know what these people get up to. They are NOT good-faith actors. --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
peacefuljeffrey 0 #90 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Yes, and someone arguing your side of this issue (guns, at least) opposed it, saying that mostly it is not viewed that way anymore. That person was Kallend, I believe. --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
peacefuljeffrey 0 #91 July 28, 2004 Quote[QuoteFind me cases of an INNOCENT bystander being hurt by a person with a CCW. Go ahead, I'll wait.................................(BTW they kid geting shot while vandalizing the guys house...guess what? He is not innocent.) If he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? In the confusion of an abnormal situation like that, the kid was "guilty" in the sense that he had brought down upon himself the unnecessary circumstance of having someone suspect that he may be a dire threat. Nothing required the kid to be showing up after midnight to vandalize a house or pull pranks. It is fair of a homeowner/defender to be afraid for his life when something so aberrant is going down. So while the kid is not "guilty" enough to warrant being shot to death, neither is the defender "guilty" of doing something wrong, because the whole situation must be judged based on "what did he reasonably have cause to fear was happening at the moment it was happening." The whole case happened because of -- was engendered by -- the faulty choices made by the kid. --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
PhillyKev 0 #92 July 28, 2004 QuoteIf he wasn't innocent, he therfore had to be guilty. Are you saying he deserved to be shot? In our justice system, at least, there's a third option that you ommtted. Not guilty. When someone is found not guilty, that doesn't prove they are innocent. It just indicates there wasn't enough proof to determine they are guilty beyond a resonable doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #93 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteOne thing is BLATANTLY obvious - if he was doing what he was supposed to be doing then he wouldn't have gotten shot. Right? That argument is a touch too simple in my book. Since it would be just as easy to reply, that it is BLATANTLY obvious the boy would not have been dead if the man did not have a gun. But leaving the situation at a point where the man DOES have a gun but the kid DOESN'T go around pulling late-night vandalism raids would still enable the guy to have a gun to defend himself against real attackers AND the kid would still be un-shot. Taking the gun from the guy leaves the kid safe, yes, but leaves the guy without his means of defense. So if you want the kid to be safe and don't want to also trample the guy's right to keep himself safe, the simplest answer is "don't do the actions that bait people who do have guns into shooting you." Some guy decides that every time he wants to cross a street, he refuses to look both ways and wait until it's safe. Now along comes a woman who hits him because he just walks right out into 40 mph traffic on Main Street. You could argue in favor of taking away her car so that she never could have hit him -- but that would punish her even under normal circumstances. Or you could say, "She wouldn't hit a guy even having a car if he would just do what's normal and not walk straight out into traffic." Why would this be different for guns? The guy with the gun still can have it for legitimate uses. --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
peacefuljeffrey 0 #94 July 28, 2004 QuoteMost of your points are well taken, Ron, eventhough I may not agree with all of them. I have never even held a gun, ever in my life. I wouldn't mind trying it once. I am however happy, that I have been lucky enough in life to have lived and continue to live in societies where we generally do not feel the need to arm ourselves for protection. I guess in a lot of ways, this all comes down to cultural differences. All the more reason you should recuse yourself from judging whether others are justified when they determine they feel the need to arm themselves for protection. Do you not recognize that some people do NOT live in the relatively safe and luxurious circumstances that you do, in which you feel no pressing need to stand ready to defend against criminal attack? Some people DO live in shitty areas; some people DO live so far from the quick response of authorities that if they were being home-invaded, it would come down to them alone to fight for their lives because the police are half an hour away. So since you don't know at all what that might be like, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the need or desire for a gun for protection, or to suggest that we all jump through bureaucratic hoops to enjoy that right. --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
juanesky 0 #95 July 28, 2004 Quotewasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Is that a new verb or is it missing an "S"?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #96 July 28, 2004 QuoteThe point is (you keep seeming to miss it) that if you check the arrest/conviction rates of CCW holders, and compare it to that of the overall population, CCW holders bring the average DOWN. That speaks nothing but good of CCW holders. It means that the whole population could learn about civility, safety and law-abidingness from those who are carrying guns! Correlation is not causation. Those people were bringing the average down before they got CCWs. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #97 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? Yes, and someone arguing your side of this issue (guns, at least) opposed it, saying that mostly it is not viewed that way anymore. That person was Kallend, I believe. - Eh? What? I haven't been following this thread closely, but just to clarify: I have no objection to law abiding citizens having guns. Even BIG ones. I choose not to own one myself because I don't want the hassle and I have no need. I believe the Xth amendment has been rendered meaningless and the people de facto only have the rights explicitly given to them and the government is encroaching even there, and I think this is a BAD thing.... 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
kelpdiver 2 #98 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs for gun ownership Vs. Canopy wingload.... Well the right to bear arms is in the constitution...The right to highly load a Stiletto is not. wasn't there a line somewhere about if something wan't specifically forbidden it automatically became a right? The notion is that you have freedom up to the point where it interferes with the freedoms/rights of others. If a person abusing a Stiletto is only hurting themselves, then it would be ok. But I think a lot of people here would point to the risk it puts others at. (On that, arguing that his death would give the sport a bad name is not a valid argument). But in reality you do have the right to do whatever you want with a stiletto right now, provided you do it on your own. If you want to jump at a DZ, you may be subject to restrictions on your rights in exchange for the use of their planes and landing zones. Of course the whole notion of freedom to hurt yourself is pretty weak in America now, albeit not nearly as bad as in other nations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #99 July 29, 2004 QuoteAll the more reason you should recuse yourself from judging whether others are justified when they determine they feel the need to arm themselves for protection. Do you not recognize that some people do NOT live in the relatively safe and luxurious circumstances that you do, in which you feel no pressing need to stand ready to defend against criminal attack? Some people DO live in shitty areas; some people DO live so far from the quick response of authorities that if they were being home-invaded, it would come down to them alone to fight for their lives because the police are half an hour away. So since you don't know at all what that might be like, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the need or desire for a gun for protection, or to suggest that we all jump through bureaucratic hoops to enjoy that right. Ahh yes, the infamous, if you haven't been there you can't say anything about it, argument. Since you have never been president of the united states, you therefore should recuse yourself from making any comments on the job Bush is doing. Good or bad. Since you have not been to Iraq, you really should recuse yourself from making any statements regarding Iraq. Since you have never searched or found WMDs you really should not be making any comments about that. I can go on and on and on. That argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever though. Next, for those claiming the 16 year old was doing something that he shouldn't have been doing in the first place, so getting killed is his own fault. Any of you ever pulled a prank on some one. Like going over to their house and TPing their car, or anything similar like that. If your buddy ends up getting shot and killed doing that, would you still be saying the same thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #100 July 29, 2004 QuoteNext, for those claiming the 16 year old was doing something that he shouldn't have been doing in the first place, so getting killed is his own fault. Any of you ever pulled a prank on some one. Like going over to their house and TPing their car, or anything similar like that. If your buddy ends up getting shot and killed doing that, would you still be saying the same thing? It would suck, but ya know, I would understand. If you do stupid things, expect stupid things to happen to you. You have to look at the root cause of that accident....The root cause was not about a gun...The root cause was some kid breaking the law and doing something stupid. Blame the kid for his actions."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
