More on Gun Control

[Grammatron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3111970.stm
Three people died and more than 20 were injured when an explosion ripped through a building in western Japan where an office siege was underway.

A 52-year-old man, said to be a disgruntled office worker, was reportedly armed with a knife and a bow and arrow when he went into the office of courier firm Keikyubin, in the city of Nagoya.

I was reading this story and I was reminded about many arguments people have about how gun control can stop violence by taking guns away from people. Crimes like disgruntled office worker shooting everyone will not happen again and so on. Then you read a story like this and all those arguments crumble. If someone is crazy and desperate enough they don't even need a gun to kill a bunch of people.

[DanishDynamite]

Must...not...reply....
I was reading this story and I was reminded about many arguments people have about how gun control can stop violence by taking guns away from people. Crimes like disgruntled office worker shooting everyone will not happen again and so on. Then you read a story like this and all those arguments crumble. If someone is crazy and desperate enough they don't even need a gun to kill a bunch of people.The arguments don't crumple. Random mass killings are much harder to do with a knife as opposed to a semi-automatic. The vast improvement in killing ability of a gun is the reason why soldiers are equipped with guns instead of knives.

BTW, the ability to kill many people without guns is an obvious fact, as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated. It does however require a bit of planning.

[Tony]

It's that damn Japanese bow & arrow culture, when will they ever learn?

I'll be damned if you ever see me in Japan, what with arrows and such flying around, one is likely to get killed. :p

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Must...not...reply....
The arguments don't crumple. Random mass killings are much harder to do with a knife as opposed to a semi-automatic. The vast improvement in killing ability of a gun is the reason why soldiers are equipped with guns instead of knives.

BTW, the ability to kill many people without guns is an obvious fact, as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated. It does however require a bit of planning.

You are, of course, correct. It is much easier to kill with a gun/assault rifle than with a knife and bow and arrow, but if you listen to advocates for the extreme gun control -- I will concede I do support some level of control, like the Brady bill and "trading" guns at a gun show -- you will leave with an impression that guns and only guns cause all those crimes. And if we take the guns out suddenly no child will ever die in school and offices will be able to lay off people with out fearing a murder suicide. That is just not the case.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You are, of course, correct. It is much easier to kill with a gun/assault rifle than with a knife and bow and arrow, but if you listen to advocates for the extreme gun control -- I will concede I do support some level of control, like the Brady bill and "trading" guns at a gun show -- you will leave with an impression that guns and only guns cause all those crimes. And if we take the guns out suddenly no child will ever die in school and offices will be able to lay off people with out fearing a murder suicide. That is just not the case.

I'm with Danish. (What flavour are you, btw?) A gun is a more efficient killing machine. You will never rid society of homicide. You just try to minimisel it. Much as people try to control the road toll. Various countries resort to different levels of control.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3111970.stm


Crimes like disgruntled office worker shooting everyone will not happen again and so on. Then you read a story like this and all those arguments crumble.

yep...those arguments sure do crumble....but who is making them? They are one of the usual straw man arguments that are regularly nailed to gun control advocates.

Can you give me even one example of a gun control advocate who has ever stated that violent crimes like this one would cease under increased gun control?????? even just one????

[JAR]

If the government legalizes physician assisted suicide for everyone, then I might support gun control.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


-- I will concede I do support some level of control, like the Brady bill and "trading" guns at a gun show --



Congratulations fellow gun control advocate...welcome to the movement;)
No that you have taken this step I must warn you that you will be told over and over again that you actually really believe in the total banning of all firearms and that if this is done then all crime will vanish. You also wish to run peoples lives.....all aspects, even what they think. I bet you never realised what an enemy of freedom you were?

:D

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
And if we take the guns out suddenly no child will ever die in school and offices will be able to lay off people with out fearing a murder suicide.

No, dummy!

Everyone knows that posting the TEN COMMANDMENTS in school is what will stop it! ;)


I do think that's an extreme straw-man to say that gun control advocates believe that all violent crime will be stopped if we eliminate guns.

On the OTHER hand, the murders(something like 100 murders a month) in Japan are vastly cooler. I read about one a couple years ago where an old guy didn't want to give up his house for a new freeway. So he killed 2 government officials with a samurai sword!

You must admit, swords and crossbows make for much cooler crime statistics.


(SAD, in bad taste, sure.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Silicon

I do think that's an extreme straw-man to say that gun control advocates believe that all violent crime will be stopped if we eliminate guns.



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Then why do it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Then why do it?

As stated previously, to reduce the homicide rate. Why get innoculations when they can't guarantee you won't get the disease you are being innoculated against?

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As stated previously, to reduce the homicide rate.

Not worth it, and there is no evidence that gun control lowers the homicide rate. If you think not owning a gun will lower the homicide rate, dont buy one.

Why get innoculations when they can't guarantee you won't get the disease you are being innoculated against?

??What inoculations are not guaranteed to protect against viruses? :confused:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


??What inoculations are not guaranteed to protect against viruses? :confused:

No. Not at all. Depending on the virus. For example, the Flu shots I get every year are, IIRC, about 80% effective. But the Flu is a difficult case. Others are more successful, but none are 100% effective.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No. Not at all. Depending on the virus. For example, the Flu shots I get every year are, IIRC, about 80% effective. But the Flu is a difficult case. Others are more successful, but none are 100% effective.


Ok, well you asked:


Why get innoculations when they can't guarantee you won't get the disease you are being innoculated against?

I have never had a Flu shot, and I have never had the flu. You're right, why get innoculations if they are not guarenteed to protect you? It's seems like a waste of time and money to me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



Ok, well you asked:




I have never had a Flu shot, and I have never had the flu. You're right, why get innoculations if they are not guarenteed to protect you? It's seems like a waste of time and money to me.

Because if everyone has the shot, the virus cannot flourish. There is a fashion for not innoculating children at present, because there may be a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that they will suffer a severe allergic reaction to the innoculation. When the children usually don't get sick, the parents feel ok about their choice. The only problem is, they are riding on the backs of the others who do have the innnoculation and keep the virus population down. If enough people stop having the shots, the virus becomes viable again. There are reports of babies dying from whooping cough again, a terrible disease that has been under control for many years.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool

Congratulations fellow gun control advocate...welcome to the movement;)
No that you have taken this step I must warn you that you will be told over and over again that you actually really believe in the total banning of all firearms and that if this is done then all crime will vanish. You also wish to run peoples lives.....all aspects, even what they think. I bet you never realised what an enemy of freedom you were?

:D

No sir, I did not know I was an enemy of freedom :)

But besides the cooling off period and not selling guns to criminals and mental patients, I don't think anything else is needed as it will start punishing the law-abiding citizens more than people who intend to commit a crime.

[EvilYeti]

The most important thing to remember is that guns empower the individual, for good or bad. NRA folks don't like to admit this as it shows them for what they are, a largely pro-criminal organization.

Compact, high-capacity handguns are the ideal means for mass mayhem. A criminal can carry a handgun and enough ammo in a paper lunch sack to kill several dozen people. I think the huge advantage handguns supply over other weapons probably drives many people to commit acts they otherwise would not.

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The most important thing to remember is that guns empower the individual, for good or bad. NRA folks don't like to admit this as it shows them for what they are, a largely pro-criminal organization.



No more "pro-criminal" (*cough*Bullsh!t*cough*) than planned parenthood or the ACLU.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


No sir, I did not know I was an enemy of freedom :)

But besides the cooling off period and not selling guns to criminals and mental patients, I don't think anything else is needed as it will start punishing the law-abiding citizens more than people who intend to commit a crime.

But that's like saying you're only a little bit pregnant.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But that's like saying you're only a little bit pregnant.

Why?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Silicon

I do think that's an extreme straw-man to say that gun control advocates believe that all violent crime will be stopped if we eliminate guns.



Originally posted by Tony



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Then why do it?

Because Liberals hate you, and we're afraid of your lack of ability to reason, or to accept a nuanced argument. We don't want people like you armed.

:p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Then why do it?


"Symbolism Over Substance"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No. Not at all. Depending on the virus. For example, the Flu shots I get every year are, IIRC, about 80% effective. But the Flu is a difficult case. Others are more successful, but none are 100% effective.

Flu shots are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The most important thing to remember is that guns empower the individual, for good or bad. NRA folks don't like to admit this as it shows them for what they are, a largely pro-criminal organization.

Straw Man Propaganda (unless, of course, you can provide evidence that the NRA is " largely pro-criminal").

You are correct in one regard though. The 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right, and not a collective one.

I am a member and supporter of the NRA, and I can tell you that we are definitely anti-criminal.

Law Enforcement Training (http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak



"Symbolism Over Substance"

Symbols are what we use to create our society.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Silicon
I do think that's an extreme straw-man to say that gun control advocates believe that all violent crime will be stopped if we eliminate guns.


Originally posted by Tony
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Then why do it?


Originally posted by Kodiak
"Symbolism Over Substance"


Originally posted by a_unique_person
Symbols are what we use to create our society.

Non sequitur.

[American]

Gun banners have yet to explain to me how you're gonna shoot someone without a gun.

[AlH]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As stated previously, to reduce the homicide rate. Why get innoculations when they can't guarantee you won't get the disease you are being innoculated against?

Then - using the same argument - why not ban alchohol?

From <URL>December 1996 Scientific American article (http://members.tripod.com/~sober_joe/death.htm)</URL>

Excessive alcohol consumption causes more than 100,000 deaths annually in the United States, and although the number shows little sign of declining, the rate per 100,000 population has trended down since the early 1980s. Accidents, mostly due to drunken driving, accounted for 24 percent of these deaths in 1992. Alcohol-related homicide and suicide accounted for 11 and 8 percent respectively. Certain types of cancer that are partly attributable to alcohol, such as those of the esophagus, larynx, and oral cavity, contributed another 17 percent. About 9 percent is due to alcohol-related stroke. One of the most important contributors to alcohol-related deaths is a group of 12 ailments wholly caused by alcohol, among which alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver and alcohol dependence syndrome are the most important.

I expect to have a greater chance of being injured or killed by a drunk-driver than being shot by a disgruntled postal worker. Thus to improve my safety, I would support a total ban on alcohol as I do not drink and it would not be a hardship on me. Who cares about the people who safely enjoy using alcohol, it is for the greater good, including theirs and their families.

Plus you are (potentially) reducing the number of homicides (~11,000 from above) committed annually.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak



"Symbolism Over Substance"



You don’t know how right you are. The battle cry for leftists world-wide for dealing with any crisis is "we gotta do something", which usually translates into a simplistic “solution” that largely consists of throwing money at the crisis or making something illegal. For leftists, results don’t matter; it is method and intentions that count.

[Silicon]

You know,

This whole thread really sums up how bad the arguments are on this issue.

I had a really good discussion on gun control here a little while back, and it forced me to re-think my position, because data I based it on was in error. Now I'm undecided about gun control.


But I still haven't found any really persuasive arguments against gun control, and I'm not likely to with some of the posters here.

The whole argument:

"If gun control can't stop all murders, why do it?"

..has got to be the absolute worst argument I've ever heard on the issue.

The absolutist, preaching to the choir, totally useless persuasive power of that is spectacular. You, sirs, are the Michael Moore of the NRA.


Is there anyone intelligently discussing this subject on these boards? Or is EVERYONE, on BOTH SIDES of this issue merely trotting out their various Michael Moore/G. Gordon Liddy -style arguments?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by American
Gun banners have yet to explain to me how you're gonna shoot someone without a gun.

I am pro-gun control and I can think of a few ways to launch projectiles at a rather high rate of speed without using gunpowder.

Would you care to volunteer as a target?

:p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Silicon
You know,

This whole thread really sums up how bad the arguments are on this issue.

I had a really good discussion on gun control here a little while back, and it forced me to re-think my position, because data I based it on was in error. Now I'm undecided about gun control.


But I still haven't found any really persuasive arguments against gun control, and I'm not likely to with some of the posters here.

The whole argument:

"If gun control can't stop all murders, why do it?"

..has got to be the absolute worst argument I've ever heard on the issue.

The absolutist, preaching to the choir, totally useless persuasive power of that is spectacular. You, sirs, are the Michael Moore of the NRA.


Is there anyone intelligently discussing this subject on these boards? Or is EVERYONE, on BOTH SIDES of this issue merely trotting out their various Michael Moore/G. Gordon Liddy -style arguments?

First, your appraisal of the argument is a straw man.

Second, since you've only been here since June, I won't slam you for your ignorant remark.

The gun control debate has been argued here in dozens, if not scores, of threads since I've been here. A new 2nd Amendment/gun control thread seems to pop up at least monthly. Feel free to do a search (hint, hint) to find out what information, links, statistics, opinions, and research has already been posted by both sides. Hopefully, all of the earliest (and perhaps best, IMO...) are still there or maybe archived elsewhere in this forum.

Start here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=141417&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending)

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Symbols are what we use to create our society.

"Symbols are for the symbol-minded." &mdash;George Carlin

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Feel free to do a search (hint, hint) to find out what information, links, statistics, opinions, and research has already been posted by both sides. Hopefully, all of the earliest (and perhaps best, IMO...) are still there or maybe archived elsewhere in this forum.

Start here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=141417&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending)


Wow, you're right!

I've been reading some of the threads that popped up on your link.

This place HAS gone downhill!

:)


But you must admit, this thread is just useless baiting and counter-baiting.




Thanks for that link, btw. In all seriousness, that was what I was looking for. Recently there was the thread where I posted my erroneous (pro-gun-control) data, and one person called me on it, and I read around some counter arguments for my factoid and found that I wasn't very secure in my trust of the methods involved.

But trying to discuss that in the middle of that thread was like trying to discuss shakespeare in the middle of a bar-fight.

And another thread after that one was the same way. I was trying to get folks to address the studies and the numbers being discussed, and the whole thing devolved into these Michael Moore vs. G. Gordon Liddy knock-down-drag-outs.

Maybe that's just the state of the current events forum, and it's why it's my least favorite forum here. People would rather post for the benefit of their percieved fan base, rather than to be informational or to consider a point.

I'd like it if this place could come back to that. It is rather rancorous here.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Silicon



Wow, you're right!

I've been reading some of the threads that popped up on your link.

This place HAS gone downhill!

:)


But you must admit, this thread is just useless baiting and counter-baiting.




Thanks for that link, btw. In all seriousness, that was what I was looking for. Recently there was the thread where I posted my erroneous (pro-gun-control) data, and one person called me on it, and I read around some counter arguments for my factoid and found that I wasn't very secure in my trust of the methods involved.

But trying to discuss that in the middle of that thread was like trying to discuss shakespeare in the middle of a bar-fight.

And another thread after that one was the same way. I was trying to get folks to address the studies and the numbers being discussed, and the whole thing devolved into these Michael Moore vs. G. Gordon Liddy knock-down-drag-outs.

Maybe that's just the state of the current events forum, and it's why it's my least favorite forum here. People would rather post for the benefit of their percieved fan base, rather than to be informational or to consider a point.

I'd like it if this place could come back to that. It is rather rancorous here.


Feel free to PM or e-mail me with any specific points of curiousity or contention concerning the 2nd Amendment and/or gun control. Others (shanek and Richard G comes to mind off hand) would probably be equally receptive.

Or just start a new thread and set the tone yourself.

I hate rehashing the same stuff over and over for the same people, but genuinely welcome inquiries from posters new to the issue.

[DanishDynamite]

Kodiak:Feel free to PM or e-mail me with any specific points of curiousity or contention concerning the 2nd Amendment and/or gun control. Others (shanek and Richard G comes to mind off hand) would probably be equally receptive.
:roll: Yes, Silicon, those three would be excellent sources for a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. :roll:

[Silicon]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Yes, Silicon, those three would be excellent sources for a "fair and balanced" viewpoint.


Danish,

I'm not looking for a fair and balanced viewpoint. What I'm looking for are people who are willing to argue their position, but be open about where they get their data, and how that data was collected.

And I'd like it to be an open discussion because I am not an expert in research and data-analysis, and I don't know the field. People come out with studies by fierce partisans, and I may not have the education to grasp how they may be data-mining for the answer they hope to reach.

For example, on another thread one person posted a chart recently on iliteracy rates, which purported to show a large rise during the 1940's, but they didn't disclose that 3 different estimating techniques were used during that rise.

Anyway, just because posters might be intellectually honest doesn't mean that the sources they quote are.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Kodiak:
:roll: Yes, Silicon, those three would be excellent sources for a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. :roll:

I made no such claim, DD! grrr.... ;)

I can only speak for myself and my take on the issue, which I've never hidden or tried to misrepresent.

If you or Claus Larsen wish to volunteer your "skewed" ( :D ) views on this subject, let Silicon know. :p

[DanishDynamite]

Silicon:Danish,

I'm not looking for a fair and balanced viewpoint. What I'm looking for are people who are willing to argue their position, but be open about where they get their data, and how that data was collected.I realize that. I was making something of an "in" joke. I, Kodiak and shanek have been active participants in gun control threads since time began (well, it feels like that anyway).
And I'd like it to be an open discussion because I am not an expert in research and data-analysis, and I don't know the field. People come out with studies by fierce partisans, and I may not have the education to grasp how they may be data-mining for the answer they hope to reach.No gun control debater here (that I've seen) is an expert on the studies or statistics they cite. Some are, however, faster Googlers than others. The threads in Kodiak's link will presumably attest to this.
For example, on another thread one person posted a chart recently on iliteracy rates, which purported to show a large rise during the 1940's, but they didn't disclose that 3 different estimating techniques were used during that rise. Indeed. Occasionally such mistakes are innocent mistakes. Mostly, though, one wonders...
Anyway, just because posters might be intellectually honest doesn't mean that the sources they quote are. Correct. It does however show a degree of intellectual laziness.

Anyway, welcome to the ever-ongoing debate. Personally, I try to stay away from these threads nowadays because they invariably end up discussing the same studies/statistics which have been discussed to death before.

[DanishDynamite]

Kodiak:I made no such claim, DD! grrr.... ;)Agreed. Your choice of "off-hand" sources was quite telling, though. :)
I can only speak for myself and my take on the issue, which I've never hidden or tried to misrepresent.Agree.
If you or Claus Larsen wish to volunteer your "skewed" ( :D ) views on this subject, let Silicon know. :p Given that you know my view as well as I do by now, I suggest that Silicon, in the name of efficiency, just contacts your own good self. ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Given that you know my view as well as I do by now, I suggest that Silicon, in the name of efficiency, just contacts your own good self. ;)

I'm flattered at the degree of trust you're showing in me.


Either that or you don't care... ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by AlH


Then - using the same argument - why not ban alchohol?

From <URL>December 1996 Scientific American article (http://members.tripod.com/~sober_joe/death.htm)</URL>



I expect to have a greater chance of being injured or killed by a drunk-driver than being shot by a disgruntled postal worker. Thus to improve my safety, I would support a total ban on alcohol as I do not drink and it would not be a hardship on me. Who cares about the people who safely enjoy using alcohol, it is for the greater good, including theirs and their families.

Plus you are (potentially) reducing the number of homicides (~11,000 from above) committed annually.

In Australia, there has been a very aggressive campaign against drink driving. While the road toll in the states is pretty static, that in Australia has been falling consistently.

You can't ban alcohol, but you can modify people's use of it to minimise the harm done to others.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
In Australia, there has been a very aggressive campaign against drink driving. While the road toll in the states is pretty static, that in Australia has been falling consistently.

You can't ban alcohol, but you can modify people's use of it to minimise the harm done to others.

Sure, and that's effective as long as you target the people causing the problem. IOW, you target those who are actually driving, as opposed to anyone who drinks alcohol.

But as has definitely been proven in the past, alcohol Prohibition doesn't work, and there's no reason to believe that gun Prohibition would work any better.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


"Symbols are for the symbol-minded." &mdash;George Carlin

All I am saying is that we think using symbols. It's not my fault that that is how we work.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Straw Man Propaganda (unless, of course, you can provide evidence that the NRA is " largely pro-criminal").

Yawn, do any you folks actually know what a straw-man argument really is?

The NRA favors the right of everyone to purchase guns, criminal or not. Their opposition to background checks is evidence of this. The fact that they oppose legislation to close loopholes exploited by gun runners to fence weapons to criminals is even more.

I am a member and supporter of the NRA, and I can tell you that we are definitely anti-criminal.

Law Enforcement Training (http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp) [/B]

Why do they oppose legislation that would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns yet have little to no effect on the average gun purchaser?

I'll tell you why, its good business for the NRA to make guns available to criminals and recommend bigger guns to law enforcement to shoot the criminals with. A real win-win situation for them.

[Shinytop]

Except for facts like the NRA does not sell or manufacture guns. Like the NRA does not cater or even ask for the vote or monetary support of criminals. Other than truth, your post makes a lot of sense.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Except for facts like the NRA does not sell or manufacture guns. Like the NRA does not cater or even ask for the vote or monetary support of criminals. Other than truth, your post makes a lot of sense.

They don't seem to have a problem taking cash from the folks who have to defend themselves from criminals. Criminals that obtained their weapons by way of NRA sponsored legislation, btw.

It's called "playing both sides of the fence".

Unless you have a better explination of why the NRA opposes legislation that restricts gun sales to known criminals?

[Shinytop]

Gee, I don't know. I guess you could go back to California which registered guns one year with promises not to go further and then turned around and confiscated a large number of guns - contrary to what they had promised. I think that would make anybody very adverse to giving up anything. Personally I back background checks and any system that allows instant checks at gun shows. But the anti-gun lobby has taken the low road so I do not blame the NRA for not giving an inch.

In addition there are many instances where illegal use is made of an item yet it is not banned for legal use or even restricted in how it is sold. It's called freedom, something we tend to forget in wanting to make this a vanilla, kiss ass society.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Gee, I don't know. I guess you could go back to California which registered guns one year with promises not to go further and then turned around and confiscated a large number of guns - contrary to what they had promised.

Gee, I guess those folks that registered their guns should have maybe been extra-special careful not to commit felonies!

In addition there are many instances where illegal use is made of an item yet it is not banned for legal use or even restricted in how it is sold. It's called freedom, something we tend to forget in wanting to make this a vanilla, kiss ass society.

And there are many instances when items that are a public health risk have their sales restricted. Tobacco and alcohol for example. It's called society, get used to it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Yawn, do any you folks actually know what a straw-man argument really is?

Do you? You're the one misrepresenting the NRA's views.

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The NRA favors the right of everyone to purchase guns, criminal or not. Their opposition to background checks is evidence of this. The fact that they oppose legislation to close loopholes exploited by gun runners to fence weapons to criminals is even more.

Again...evidence please.

They only oppose checks which require a waiting period because they feel it is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. THe NRA has publicly stated that they are all for an computerized national database for instantaneous background checks.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Criminals that obtained their weapons by way of NRA sponsored legislation, btw.

Once again...evidence please.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Once again...evidence please.

Look up the McClure-Volkmer act. Here are some of its highlights:


Allowed Federal Firearms License holders to sell guns at gun shows located in their home state.

Allowed individuals not federally licensed as gun dealers to sell their personal firearms as a "hobby."

Restricted the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers.

Reduced the recordkeeping required of federally licensed firearms dealers, specifically eliminating recordkeeping of ammunition sales.

Raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws.

Expanded a federal program that restored the ability of convicted felons to possess firearms.


All these things do nothing but make it easier for criminals to arm themselves.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
All these things do nothing but make it easier for criminals to arm themselves.

Twisted propaganda.

I have no problem with your first five "highlights". They seem reasonable to me.

However, I see nothing that resembles you sixth "highlight", except for a provision that allows someone currently barred from firearm ownership to appeal to the Secretary. Which is not the same as restoring gun rights to felons.

I'm glad my NRA supported such an Act.

The McClure-Volkmer Act, A.K.A. the Firearms Owner's Protection Act (http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/mcclure.htm)

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


....It's called society, get used to it.


Be sure to remember that when John Ashcroft tries to pass Patriot Act II, you would be one of his biggest supporters.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


And there are many instances when items that are a public health risk have their sales restricted. Tobacco and alcohol for example. It's called society, get used to it.

Please tell me you are not as dense as your post indicates. The arms confiscated in California were by type of weapon, they had nothing to do with committing of any felonies or other crimes. Please awaken yourself to facts before posting drivel.

Tobacco and alcohol are restricted by age or locale. But then they do not have Constitutional backing to the right of citizens to alcohol or tobbacco. Please join the real world in this debate.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Kodiak

I have no problem with your first five "highlights". They seem reasonable to me.


Those "highlights" are responsible for the vast majority of firearms purchases by criminals. They do nothing to help law-abiding citizens.

I have no problem with you supporting the arming of the nations felons, but don't try and play the law&order card. That is the most blatant of hypocrisy.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Shinytop

Please tell me you are not as dense as your post indicates. The arms confiscated in California were by type of weapon, they had nothing to do with committing of any felonies or other crimes. Please awaken yourself to facts before posting drivel.

I live in California, why don't YOU look up the facts before you go making an ass of yourself again? Guns were confiscated for any number of reasons, including the comission of felonies. The most reported confiscation was the SKS assault weapons, which are ILLEGAL to own in California! People owning them were breaking the law, whether the guns were registered or not. If you have a problem with the assault weapon ban thats a different issue entirely, it has nothing to do with background checks.

Tobacco and alcohol are restricted by age or locale. But then they do not have Constitutional backing to the right of citizens to alcohol or tobbacco. Please join the real world in this debate.
The Constitution gives states the power of limited self-government and grants the federal government regulatory power over militias. Nothing California has done violates any of this.

Ad-homs are fun and all, but do you have anything of substance to bring to this debate? Name calling only relegates you to the forensic playground of grade-schoolers and right-wingers.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony



Be sure to remember that when John Ashcroft tries to pass Patriot Act II, you would be one of his biggest supporters.

Ok, THIS is a perfect example of a strawman argument. Please use this as a reference before accusing me of doing the same.

Thanks! :wink:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Those "highlights" are responsible for the vast majority of firearms purchases by criminals.

You have yet to provide any proof of this...


Originally posted by EvilYeti
They do nothing to help law-abiding citizens.

The benefits, protections, and freedoms expressed in those "highlights" are self evident, especially compared to the Act from the late 60's it superseded.


Originally posted by EvilYeti
I have no problem with you supporting the arming of the nations felons, but don't try and play the law&order card. That is the most blatant of hypocrisy.

Considering your propaganda to this point, your opinion means little, if that much...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

The Constitution gives states the power of limited self-government and grants the federal government regulatory power over militias.

The Constitution gives the states nothing! It limits, restricts and enumerates the power and role of the Federal Government.

To address you claim about militias...


"Amendment II --

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

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the "militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."
"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Ok, THIS is a perfect example of a strawman argument. Please use this as a reference before accusing me of doing the same.

Thanks! :wink:


No its not. Your justification for resticting guns is the same justification John Ashcroft uses to justify the Patriot Act.

[DanishDynamite]

As usual, the pro-gunners fall back to refering to the Second Ammendment like Creationist fall back to refering to the Bible.

Come on guys! Let's get past this last (or is it first-and-last?) line of defense, and proceed to discussing the evidenciary reasons for-or-against increasing the killing ability of the general populace.

The "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE....sorrry....THE CONSTITUTION!" argument is uninteresting for skeptics as it is not based on evidence for the rightiousness of free access to guns.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite


Come on guys! Let's get past this last (or is it first-and-last?) line of defense, and proceed to discussing the evidenciary reasons for-or-against increasing the killing ability of the general populace.



Why?

Constitutional rights aren't subject to necessity.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Tony



Why?

Constitutional rights aren't subject to necessity. Constitutional rights aren't relevant to the topic (see first post).

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

The "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE....sorrry....THE CONSTITUTION!" argument is uninteresting for skeptics as it is not based on evidence for the rightiousness of free access to guns.

Yeah, its pretty amusing to watch. Whats especially funny is that the second amendment is still being enforced exactly as its authors intended. After all, "arms" at the time were defined as black powder firearms and melee weapons. Sales and possession of such weapons are pretty much unrestricted! They even get their own special hunting season in some areas.

What's doubly amusing is the ficticious idea that the constitution and its amendments are absolute. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected by the first amendment and by the same token, neither is selling assault rifles to wanted felons protected by the second.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
As usual, the pro-gunners fall back to refering to the Second Ammendment like Creationist fall back to refering to the Bible.

Except that the Second Amendment (not to mention the rest of the Bill of Rights) actually exists, it's panifully simple to provide evidence of its existence, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Despite your flippant comparison of pro-gunners to creationists, the Second Amendment is a perfectly relevant inclusion in a thread devoted to the subject of gun control.

The "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE....sorrry....THE CONSTITUTION!" argument is uninteresting for skeptics as it is not based on evidence for the rightiousness of free access to guns.

Judicial precedent does not qualify as evidence? I beg to differ. The court decisions cited by Kodiak are perfectly legitimate, and again, pertinent in the course of this dialogue. Furthermore, your comment suggests that anyone with a different view than yourself on this topic is somehow not a skeptic -- which I'd find laughable if I didn't consider it to be in such poor taste. Feel free to correct me if I've gotten the wrong impression.

If you find this thread uninteresting, perhaps you'd care to begin another, in the specific area of your choosing. The Consitutional issue arose in response to a statement which required correction; it is indeed relevant to the course of discussion, whether or not you're bored by the commentary. I'm sorry that you've grown weary of seeing the Second Amendment explained. If people actually understood what it meant, the repetition might not be necessary.

[Shinytop]

Dear EvilYeti

If you are indeed a California resident you know the confiscation I speak of was only by type of gun, not for felonies as you have stated twice. The confiscation was done by declaring types of guns illegal after the legislature had promised no such law would occur. The types of guns were chosen by cosmetic reasons, not by ability to fire auto as that was already regulated. The thrust of my post was the breaking of promises by the legislature. Do you declare that false? Please stick to the subject this time.

[DanishDynamite]

Wolverine:Except that the Second Amendment (not to mention the rest of the Bill of Rights) actually exists, it's panifully simple to provide evidence of its existence, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Certainly it exists, just as the Bible exists.
Despite your flippant comparison of pro-gunners to creationists, the Second Amendment is a perfectly relevant inclusion in a thread devoted to the subject of gun control. It is relevant if the discussion concerns the legality of gun ownership. It is irrelevant when the discussion concerns whether free access to guns is a good idea. Check the threadstarter in regard to what this thread is about.
Judicial precedent does not qualify as evidence? I beg to differ. The court decisions cited by Kodiak are perfectly legitimate, and again, pertinent in the course of this dialogue. See above as to why they are of no interest.
Furthermore, your comment suggests that anyone with a different view than yourself on this topic is somehow not a skeptic -- which I'd find laughable if I didn't consider it to be in such poor taste. Feel free to correct me if I've gotten the wrong impression. You have the wrong impression.
If you find this thread uninteresting, perhaps you'd care to begin another, in the specific area of your choosing. Why would you think I find it uninteresting?
The Consitutional issue came up in response to a statement which required correction; it is indeed relevant to the course of discussion, whether or not you're bored by the commentary. I'm sorry that you've grown weary of seeing the Second Amendment explained. If people actually understood what it meant, the repetition might not be necessary. As I said before, the constitution is irrelevant in regards to whether free access to guns is a good idea or not. And that is what this thread is about.

The discussion about what the second amendment actually means, is by no means closed. It is, however, not relevant here.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Wolverine:Certainly it exists, just as the Bible exists.
It is relevant if the discussion concerns the legality of gun ownership. It is irrelevant when the discussion concerns whether free access to guns is a good idea. Check the threadstarter in regard to what this thread is about.
See above as to why they are of no interest.
You have the wrong impression.
Why would you think I find it uninteresting?
As I said before, the constitution is irrelevant in regards to whether free access to guns is a good idea or not. And that is what this thread is about.

The discussion about what the second amendment actually means, is by no means closed. It is, however, not relevant here.

I guess I am the "threadstarter" so I should comment. While indeed I started the thread on gun availability or rather if the availability makes crime possible or easier or neither. I did however title it gun control because legislation plays an important role on availability and 2nd amendment is definitely relevant to this discussion, at least IMO. Part of the point of this thread was that limiting access to guns doesn't stop the woo-woos out there from killing people in mass.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I did however title it gun control because legislation plays an important role on availability and 2nd amendment is definitely relevant to this discussion, at least IMO.

Thanks for weighing in. I was beginning to think my reading comprehension skills had taken a nose dive...

[DanishDynamite]

Grammatron:I guess I am the "threadstarter" so I should comment. While indeed I started the thread on gun availability or rather if the availability makes crime possible or easier or neither. Indeed you did.
I did however title it gun control because legislation plays an important role on availability and 2nd amendment is definitely relevant to this discussion, at least IMO. So you feel that your title "More on Gun Control" somehow alludes to the 2nd ammendment, even if the content of your post does not?
Part of the point of this thread was that limiting access to guns doesn't stop the woo-woos out there from killing people in mass. Which has nothing to do with what it says in the Bibl...Constitution.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Thanks for weighing in. I was beginning to think my reading comprehension skills had taken a nose dive... No comment on your reading abilities. Your comprehension abilities, however....

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Constitutional rights aren't relevant to the topic (see first post).

That doesnt answer the question, I asked Why?

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:That doesnt answer the question, I asked Why?Of course it does.

[jan]

Poor Americans. They could life in a society like Japan, with gun possession prohibited and few, almost none people being killed with arms (except those bow-and-arrows-incidents), but no... unfortunately they have this Second Ammendment.

[Tony]

Come on guys! Let's get past this last (or is it first-and-last?) line of defense, and proceed to discussing the evidenciary reasons for-or-against increasing the killing ability of the general populace.

Why?

Constitutional rights aren't relevant to the topic (see first post).




I say again, it doesnt anwer the question. Why discuss the reasons for or against increasing the killing ability of the general populace?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by jan
Poor Americans. They could life in a society like Japan, with gun possession prohibited and few, almost none people being killed with arms (except those bow-and-arrows-incidents), but no... unfortunately they have this Second Ammendment. Which is why I'm trying to help the poor buggers. They just don't understand what is in their best interst. :D

[Grammatron]

Wow, I never knew that someone else I never met before can tell me what I am/was thinking :)

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Grammatron:Indeed you did.
So you feel that your title "More on Gun Control" somehow alludes to the 2nd ammendment, even if the content of your post does not?
Anything that has to do with gun ownership or restrictions on that ownership inevitably goes back to the 2nd amendment since with out it there would be no rights of gun ownership.

Which has nothing to do with what it says in the Bibl...Constitution.
It's funny how you accuse people who go back to constitution of being "fundies" like creationist. However, I bet if tomorrow someone in the state government forbid reporters of using certain words and critiquing certain people, I'm sure you would have no problem with that assault of free speech, you'd merely call it a correction of what free speech was suppose to be.

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Yeah, its pretty amusing to watch.


No more amusing than when atheists gripe about the separation of church and state. Or when the ACLU refers to the first amendment. Or when defense lawyers bring up that pesky trail by jury.

If you hate the constitution so much, you could move to Mexico.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Which is why I'm trying to help the poor buggers. They just don't understand what is in their best interst.


Getting butt-fuct by the state is in our best interests?

Just because europeans roll over when their rights are abused, doesnt mean americans will.

[DanishDynamite]

Grammatron:Wow, I never knew that someone else I never met before can tell me what I am/was thinking :)You live and you learn. :)
Anything that has to do with gun ownership or restrictions on that ownership inevitably goes back to the 2nd amendment since with out it there would be no rights of gun ownership.No it doesn't. Even if arms weren't mentioned in the Constitution, there could still be laws concerning their availability, use, etc.
It's funny how you accuse people who go back to constitution of being "fundies" like creationist. I wouldn't use the word "accuse". "Imply" would be more accurate. ;)
However, I bet if tomorrow someone in the state government forbid reporters of using certain words and critiquing certain people, I'm sure you would have no problem with that assault of free speech, you'd merely call it a correction of what free speech was suppose to be. No. The difference, you see, is that strong arguments can be made for "freedom of speech" without any reference to some Bible. I would like to see similar strong arguments made for free access to guns.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I would like to similar strong arguments made for free access to guns.

Then, again, I would suggest you start a thread specifically devoted to that issue rather than attempting to mandate what is or is not relevant here. The threadstarter has spoken. Live with it.

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:Getting butt-fuct by the state is in our best interests?I'm sure some people (no names) would enjoy the experience.
Just because europeans roll over when their rights are abused, doesnt mean americans will. Can you give an example of this illusion?

[DanishDynamite]

Wolverine:Then, again, I would suggest you start a thread specifically devoted to that issue rather than attempting to mandate what is or is not relevant here. The threadstarter has spoken. Live with it. Indeed, he has spoken. Just like letters and other communication between the holy Founding Fathers "have spoken". The question is: What can actually be determined by what is stated in the binding posts/documents?

[Edited to change relevant to binding]

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Can you give an example of this illusion?


Plenty...

European "anti-racism" and "anti-hate speech" laws, intrusive and extreme gun control, excessively high taxes, and (something new I just learned about) requiring people to get TV licenses.

These are a few examples.

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:Plenty...

European "anti-racism" and "anti-hate speech" laws, intrusive and extreme gun control, excessively high taxes, and (something new I just learned about) requiring people to get TV licenses.

These are a few examples. Sorry, you have to be more explicit. Which of our fundamental rights are being violated in each case?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Which of our fundamental rights are being violated in each case?

Free speech, free thought, the right self ownership and the right to defend yourself.

[Shinytop]

The history of European governments is pretty much that people have the rights allowed by the government.

Here in the United States we formed a Constitution that limits the power of government. The Constitution is in fact a covenant between the people and the government. It allows for changes and prescribes the way changes can occur. People in other countries do not understand this and are often curious at our lack of trust in government. Perhaps it began with the autocratic and tyrannical governments of Europe in 17th and 18th centuries. Certainly they have come a long way since then but still have not a contract limiting the powers of their governments.

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:Free speechPlease explain how this is an unlimited right in the US.
free thought:confused:
the right self ownership:confused:
and the right to defend yourself. Every European state has this right. :confused:

[DanishDynamite]

Hi there, Shiny. :)

Shinytop:The history of European governments is pretty much that people have the rights allowed by the government.No. We have rights decreed in our Constitutions.
Here in the United States we formed a Constitution that limits the power of government. The Constitution is in fact a covenant between the people and the government. It allows for changes and prescribes the way changes can occur. People in other countries do not understand this and are often curious at our lack of trust in government. I understand it perfectly but still don't understand this endemic mistrust of the evil Guvmint.
Perhaps it began with the autocratic and tyrannical governments of Europe in 17th and 18th centuries. Certainly they have come a long way since then but still have not a contract limiting the powers of their governments. In principle, I think you may be right. In practice, we have no Patriot Act in this neck of the woods.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Please explain how this is an unlimited right in the US.


Explain how you think its not.

Every European state has this right.

You equate defense of self with defense of state? I knew europe was more fascistic, but this unbelievable. I guess when the state is supreme; individuals’ protecting themselves is irrelevant.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Shinytop

If you are indeed a California resident you know the confiscation I speak of was only by type of gun, not for felonies as you have stated twice. The confiscation was done by declaring types of guns illegal after the legislature had promised no such law would occur. The types of guns were chosen by cosmetic reasons, not by ability to fire auto as that was already regulated. The thrust of my post was the breaking of promises by the legislature. Do you declare that false? Please stick to the subject this time.

I have no idea what confiscation you are talking about, guns are confiscated from criminals in CA all the time. If you are discussing specifically the SKS confiscations that was due to a court ruling that clarified one particular aspect of the law. It had nothing to do with cosmetic changes, the illegal weapons were SKS sportsters that had been converted from a fixed magazine (legal in CA) to a removeable one (illegal in CA). The former AG had apparently said such conversions would be legal, but the Court determined otherwise.

As usual the paranoid gun-nuts ran around flapping their arms and screaming that the gummint was disarming the public. According to them it would only be a matter of time before the King of England would take advantage of the situation and start quartering troops in private homes.

In reality, the CA state government has zero interest in disarming the public. They are only interested in upholding the law as ruled by the local legislature. Owners of the illegal fireams were offered a cash settlement to turn in the illegal weapons. If you have a problem with that, complain about the assault rifle laws, not the registration initiative.

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:Explain how you think its not.Sorry Tony boy. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
You equate defense of self with defense of state? No. Where did you get that idea?
I knew europe was more fascistic, but this unbelievable. I guess when the state is supreme; individuals’ protecting themselves is irrelevant. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[DanishDynamite]

EvilYeti:As usual the paranoid gun-nuts ran around flapping their arms and screaming that the gummint was disarming the public.:D :D

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Tony:Sorry Tony boy. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.


I never made any claim.

No. Where did you get that idea?

...and the right to defend yourself.

Every European state has this right.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

No. The difference, you see, is that strong arguments can be made for "freedom of speech" without any reference to some Bible. I would like to see similar strong arguments made for free access to guns.

Go ahead, make a strong argument for "freedom of speech" without any reference to "some Bible."

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:I never made any claim.
Of course you did. You said that europeans roll over when their rights are abused, as opposed to Americans. Herre are your claims:European "anti-racism" and "anti-hate speech" laws, intrusive and extreme gun control, excessively high taxes, and (something new I just learned about) requiring people to get TV licenses.
In regard to your other misconception: when I said that every European state had the right of self-defense, I was obviously refering to the fact that every European state had the personal right of self defense on their books. Any thinking individual would have grasped this. :rolleyes:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony
No more amusing than when atheists gripe about the separation of church and state. Or when the ACLU refers to the first amendment. Or when defense lawyers bring up that pesky trail by jury.

If you hate the constitution so much, you could move to Mexico.

I'm defending the consitution and the second amendment as they were written by the founding fathers. Its right-wing nutjobs like yourself that are trying to pervert it for your own political agenda.

Which is fine and dandy. Why don't you and your buddies take your capguns to Washington and stage a nice revolution? Then you could write a nice new consitution however you see fit. That would be much more effective (and patriotic) than crying on a web forum.

[DanishDynamite]

Grammatron:Go ahead, make a strong argument for "freedom of speech" without any reference to "some Bible." You are being silly, Grammatron. F**cking books have been written on this subject.

Anyway, it is way past my bedtime. See you in about 18 hours.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Tony:
Of course you did. You said that europeans roll over when their rights are abused, as opposed to Americans. Herre are your claims:


Thats not the "claim" you were talking about.

In regard to your other misconception: when I said that every European state had the right of self-defense, I was obviously refering to the fact that every European state had the personal right of self defense on their books. Any thinking individual would have grasped this.

I ask again, you equate defense of your person to defense of the state?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Grammatron:You are being silly, Grammatron. F**cking books have been written on this subject.

Anyway, it is way past my bedtime. See you in about 18 hours.

Thank you for that eloquent retort.

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I'm defending the consitution and the second amendment as they were written by the founding fathers.

No you're not. And you have absolutly no evidence of that.


Why don't you and your buddies take your capguns to Washington and stage a nice revolution? Then you could write a nice new consitution however you see fit.

Who says we're not?

[Shinytop]

EvilYeti

In 1998 California passed an assault weapons ban that allowed current gun owners to register their weapons in order to keep them. The next year they confiscated many of the weapons they had said would be allowed if registered. You can paint it any way you want, but the fact remain that California treated gun owners as criminals and lied to them to get votes for one act and then ignored their own promises.

Is in any clearer to you now.


You from other countries wanting to ask why we should empower more people to have the ability to kill are asking the wrong questions. We accept that freedoms have a price. Freedom of speech means we allow asswipes to burn our flag in protest. Freedom of religion means we have idiots on street corners yelling out logical insults in the name of religion. And freedom for law abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons will result in criminals having guns all too often.

One of the biggest misunderstandings going on is that the current gun laws are not strictly enforced. I will accept no more gun restrictions until they enforce current laws.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Shinytop

Is in any clearer to you now.

No. How many of the registered gun owners had weapons confiscated? You said "many". I would like a number, please. So I can be "clear". Maybe a percentage even?

We accept that freedoms have a price. Freedom of speech means we allow asswipes to burn our flag in protest. Freedom of religion means we have idiots on street corners yelling out logical insults in the name of religion. And freedom for law abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons will result in criminals having guns all too often.

I actually have no problem with that argument. I make it all the time in fact. What irks me is when the NRA folks lie and say things like guns make us safer or more guns == less crime. That's complete and utter bullsh!t.
I support the second amendment and I support gun control that makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons and ammuntion.

One of the biggest misunderstandings going on is that the current gun laws are not strictly enforced. I will accept no more gun restrictions until they enforce current laws.

Oh thats a load of crap. You complain about the state of California confiscating illegal guns in one breath, then bitch that they don't enfoce the current law! The confiscations were enforcing current laws!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I actually have no problem with that argument. I make it all the time in fact. What irks me is when the NRA folks lie and say things like guns make us safer or more guns == less crime. That's complete and utter bullsh!t.
I support the second amendment and I support gun control that makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons and ammuntion.


Let me ask you something EvilYeti, do you support the right to carry concealed weapons for law abiding citizens?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony

No you're not. And you have absolutly no evidence of that.

I just said I support the right of Americans to buy as many swords and muskets as they want, without any background checks. Just like the founding fathers intended!

Who says we're not?

Yeah right, you folks did a real bang-up job at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Keep up the good work, its really cleaning up the ole' gene pool!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Let me ask you something EvilYeti, do you support the right to carry concealed weapons for law abiding citizens?

If its well regulated, the citizen can show just cause and is not a felon, sure.

Which is how the law pretty much works now.

I'm not in favor of random citizens carrying concealed weapons, as random citizens are morons. They can't even use a cell phone without crashing their car, why should we trust them with automatic weapons?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
As usual, the pro-gunners fall back to refering to the Second Ammendment like Creationist fall back to refering to the Bible.

Come on guys! Let's get past this last (or is it first-and-last?) line of defense, and proceed to discussing the evidenciary reasons for-or-against increasing the killing ability of the general populace.

The "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE....sorrry....THE CONSTITUTION!" argument is uninteresting for skeptics as it is not based on evidence for the rightiousness of free access to guns.

Yes, the law often is the last line of defense, and that is exactly what the US Constitution is, the supreme law of the land (my land, anyway...).

If you had read carefully, I posted the 2nd Amendment info for EvilYeti, who incorrectly thought that the US Constitution
empowers the States and that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, not as evidence of the "righteousness" of anything.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jan
Poor Americans. They could life in a society like Japan, with gun possession prohibited and few, almost none people being killed with arms (except those bow-and-arrows-incidents), but no... unfortunately they have this Second Ammendment.

Sorry, but I like having more freedom than the Japanese...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Anything that has to do with gun ownership or restrictions on that ownership inevitably goes back to the 2nd amendment since with out it there would be no rights of gun ownership.

Don't fall into that trap!

Never forget that self defense is a fundamental right. The constitution does not bestow that right, it only protects that preexisting right from any infringement.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You are being silly, Grammatron. F**cking books have been written on this subject.

Like the bible?? ;) :p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If its well regulated, the citizen can show just cause and is not a felon, sure.

Which is how the law pretty much works now.

I'm not in favor of random citizens carrying concealed weapons, as random citizens are morons. They can't even use a cell phone without crashing their car, why should we trust them with automatic weapons?

"Well regulated"? Define...

"Just Cause"? Explain...

How disgustingly elitist...

So you are saying that "random citizens" cannot be trusted with freedom?

You're a "random citizen", EvilYeti. How about we take some of your freedom?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Don't fall into that trap!

Never forget that self defense is a fundamental right. The constitution does not bestow that right, it only protects that preexisting right from any infringement.

What a crock of s**t. There are no fundamental rights. They are all a political construct.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


What a crock of s**t. There are no fundamental rights. They are all a political construct.

Fundamental in the sense of basic human civilization and society groups. I'm not talking about anything handed down from "on high"...

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If its well regulated, the citizen can show just cause and is not a felon, sure.

Which is how the law pretty much works now.

I'm not in favor of random citizens carrying concealed weapons, as random citizens are morons. They can't even use a cell phone without crashing their car, why should we trust them with automatic weapons?

Sorry, EvilYeti, your post alluding to automatic weapons is indicative of your approach. Nobody said anything about automatic weapons. Changing the words in order to make a point is fundamentally dishonest.

And so is ignoring what another poster says. I referred to the changing of the rules by your state after they made promises to gun owners. You want to keep pointing at the law. The law makers made promises and then broke them with the law. Ignore it if you must but your duplicity and dishonesty is recognized.

Many drivers cannot drive worth a s**t, yet they are still on the road threatening me every day. Should all driving be banned because there are those who cannot handle it? Hell, there are people out there who get pinched after losing their license. They are seldom incarcerated so they do it again tomorrow.

Want an example of a laws not being enforced, huh? Try the thousands of back ground checks who turn up criminals trying to get guns. We know these people are going to come back to pick up the weapon they tried to buy. Why aren't we putting out warrants and arresting them? Seems like that would be a good start.

[jan]

Originally posted by Tony



Getting butt-fuct by the state is in our best interests?

Just because europeans roll over when their rights are abused, doesnt mean americans will.

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry, but I like having more freedom than the Japanese...

You are not allowed to buy nuclear weapons or anthrax, you are forced to pay tax, you are denied to use heroine, you can't cruise the highway with whatever speed you may seem fit, you are forced to buy those porn magazines mail order since your local store doesn't have them, and you are still convinced that America is the home of the Free, unlike Denmark, Japan or Germany, being totalitarian tyrannies?

Seems as if your sweet little bottom is being penetrated by the government without you noticing.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Fundamental in the sense of basic human civilization and society groups. I'm not talking about anything handed down from "on high"...

Perhaps from a pragmatic basis—in terms of the best way of achieving desirable goals—which suggests that rights aren't fundamental or inviolable, rather it's a matter of efficacy?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Anything that has to do with gun ownership or restrictions on that ownership inevitably goes back to the 2nd amendment since with out it there would be no rights of gun ownership.
Not strictly true; rights of gun ownership is an expression of the right to self defence, and as such doesn't necessarily depend on your Constitution for its existence. But "the right to bear arms" isn't the ultimate expression of it, it's more of a case of an appropriate expression of it. Which is why you can own guns but not nuclear weapons. :D

[AlH]

What I see is most people are perfectly willing to ban something that they do not do anyway that gives them a perceived benefit.

Non-gun owners see no problem in banning firearms as they do not see any other function to them other than commiting murders. Tea-totalers will ban alcohol as it is not an inconvienence to them and increases their percieved safety. Non-drug users percieve that all druggies are crazed addicts who steal, cheat and live on welfare so locking anyone who uses drugs is acceptable. Non-smokers find that banning smoking everywhere to be advantageous to them without any hardship whatsoever.

You might as well argue that skydiving should be banned as it is dangerous. It can even be used to as murder. Most people don't do it so it is not a loss to them and it "helps" protect those that would do it.

http://www.dropzone.com/news/Murderinquiryintoskydivi.shtml

Automobiles cause more deaths each year than guns but the benefits vs. risks is seen to be acceptable and some Americans buy SUVs just to get a decreased feeling of risk at the expense of the environment and consideration of other drivers on the roads in smaller vehicles. Banning all vehicles for non-government functions and forcing people to use public transport would reduce deaths and reduce damage to the environment but is an inconvienence for most people so it will never happen.

Alcohol is used by a large number of people in the US so the probability of banning is slim. Drugs are not used by the majority of people vocal in politics so getting them legalized is most likely non-existent. Tobacco and guns seem to have about 50-50 split in their supporters and detractors so we have a see-saw battle in laws created over both.

Gun ownership is considered to be a recreation by many, be it target shooting, hunting or just plain collecting unique pieces. Drinking is also considered a recreation. Having a gun for self-defence - to provide oneself a feeling of security is not much different than drinking to improve one's confidence and approach that female in the bar or stand up before the board of directors and give a speech. Target shooting with a gun on the weekends is bad but drinking with the guys to the point of passing out (and possible death from alcohol poisoning) is admired by many. Go figure.

Murder is already illegal in the US be it by gun, knife, club, car, alcohol poisoning, drowning, pushed off a cliff, strangled, hanged, pipe bombs, electrocution, etc, etc, etc. It still happens.

Basically gun control boils down to for the good of society (i.e. you) we are going to prevent a group of people from enjoying an activity they enjoy or find useful because some people misuse it and harm others. It is for your own good.

What needs to be done is alter the urge of the people to kill in the first place. Make it socially unacceptable as they have targeted drunk driving. Instead of hyping/glamorizing/promoting gun violence in the news and media they should change to tone to these people are idiots. Rather than showing a teen that he can become famous for shooting up a school, send the message that no-one will remember you at all for it. Hollywood seems to have a very vocal anti-gun population yet they produce ever-more violent shot-filled action movies each year. It makes you wonder if they are intentionally trying to scare society about guns as I have encountered several anti-gun people locally whose only "education" about guns is what they see in the movies like they are unaware that automatic weapons (as seen in the movies) are already illegal or that a felon (criminal) is already prohibited from possessing a gun. Or else it may not be as underhanded as that - the writers may just be trying to top last year - but the Hollywood actors are just as ignorant as those that I have encountered and actually believe that what is in the movies is real.

[AlH]

Originally posted by jan




You are not allowed to buy nuclear weapons or anthrax, you are forced to pay tax, you are denied to use heroine, you can't cruise the highway with whatever speed you may seem fit, you are forced to buy those porn magazines mail order since your local store doesn't have them, and you are still convinced that America is the home of the Free, unlike Denmark, Japan or Germany, being totalitarian tyrannies?

I wasn't aware that you could purchase nuclear weapons in Germany, Japan Denmark. :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Perhaps from a pragmatic basis—in terms of the best way of achieving desirable goals—which suggests that rights aren't fundamental or inviolable, rather it's a matter of efficacy?

OK.

How about "fundamental for our success as a species"? :)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jan

You are not allowed to buy nuclear weapons or anthrax, you are forced to pay tax, you are denied to use heroine, you can't cruise the highway with whatever speed you may seem fit, you are forced to buy those porn magazines mail order since your local store doesn't have them, and you are still convinced that America is the home of the Free, unlike Denmark, Japan or Germany, being totalitarian tyrannies?

Seems as if your sweet little bottom is being penetrated by the government without you noticing.

Thus my "more free than" remark. I never said "most free".

And as far as my "sweet little bottom"...at least I don't lube up and take it willingly like much of Europe. ;)

[plindboe]

Originally posted by jan
You are not allowed to buy nuclear weapons or anthrax, you are forced to pay tax, you are denied to use heroine, you can't cruise the highway with whatever speed you may seem fit, you are forced to buy those porn magazines mail order since your local store doesn't have them, and you are still convinced that America is the home of the Free, unlike Denmark, Japan or Germany, being totalitarian tyrannies?
Doesn't local stores sell porn mags at all in the US? Oh, the humanity!!!! :eek: Is it illegal, or what is the reason? Here in Denmark I have honestly never seen a store without them.

Originally posted by jan
Seems as if your sweet little bottom is being penetrated by the government without you noticing.
:D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by plindboe
Doesn't local stores sell porn mags at all in the US?

I've never had any trouble, but then I live in the metro Detroit area. Other parts of the country (the bible belt maybe?) might be different.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If its well regulated, the citizen can show just cause and is not a felon, sure.

Which is how the law pretty much works now.

I'm not in favor of random citizens carrying concealed weapons, as random citizens are morons. They can't even use a cell phone without crashing their car, why should we trust them with automatic weapons?

I see, so what you are saying we should not only regulate guns of law-abiding citizens -- because all people are stupid and need to be told how to live -- but also cell phones since obviously they are causing deaths as well. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I have no idea what confiscation you are talking about, guns are confiscated from criminals in CA all the time.

You have no idea what confiscation he is talking about but then continue to write about the very thing he speaks of. Amazing. And these "criminals" you speak of were guilty of owning a rifle that was legal one day and illegal the next. Pardon me if I :rolleyes:.

If you are discussing specifically the SKS confiscations that was due to a court ruling that clarified one particular aspect of the law. It had nothing to do with cosmetic changes, the illegal weapons were SKS sportsters that had been converted from a fixed magazine (legal in CA) to a removeable one (illegal in CA). The former AG had apparently said such conversions would be legal, but the Court determined otherwise.

As was pointed out previously, this is a cosmetic change to the firearm. It didn't change the way it works. (Not to mention the factory SKS Sporters that didn't need to be converted) Which makes it even more irritating since it's so arbitrary: It's still the same rifle. This is a way to make instant felons of formerly law abiding citizens. Their crime? Owning a firearm that was legal one day and illegal the next. Had they robbed anyone? Threatened anyone? Shot anyone? Nope. Just owned a rifle that the CA powers that be found scary looking (pretty much the basis for all assault weapon laws since they are rarely used in crime). And since they registered them there was a handy list of who owned what.

Of course, no actual criminals registered their SKS's because the SC ruled that registration violated their 5th Amendment rights.

As usual the paranoid gun-nuts ran around flapping their arms and screaming that the gummint was disarming the public. According to them it would only be a matter of time before the King of England would take advantage of the situation and start quartering troops in private homes.

More hyperbole. The facts however show that CA in particular continue to ban more and more firearms, and have used registration in concert with confiscation. You don't have to be paranoid to understand facts.

In reality, the CA state government has zero interest in disarming the public.

Find it hard to breathe with your head in the sand?

They are only interested in upholding the law as ruled by the local legislature.

The law is changed each year to include more and more firearms. I fail to see how this is zero interest in disarming the public.

Owners of the illegal fireams were offered a cash settlement to turn in the illegal weapons.

So?

If you have a problem with that, complain about the assault rifle laws, not the registration initiative.

I believe the person that complained about confiscation is against the assault weapon laws as well as the registration laws. So am I.

[jan]

Originally posted by AlH
What needs to be done is alter the urge of the people to kill in the first place. Make it socially unacceptable as they have targeted drunk driving.

That's a cute idea.:rolleyes:

[jan]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Thus my "more free than" remark. I never said "most free".

And as far as my "sweet little bottom"...at least I don't lube up and take it willingly like much of Europe. ;)

Excuse my remark about certain body parts. It was to answer Tony, not you (my post quoted you and Tony). Just some collateral damage...

Many german people are adamant that every citizen is born with the natural unalienable right to drive on a public freeway as fast as his or her car allows. Seems a rather stupid idea to me. Few care about guns. So you may agree that individual freedom must be limited now and then? And the people of different nations may establish different points of equilibrium? So that it is not just a question of "freedom vs dictatorship"?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jan
...the natural unalienable right to drive on a public freeway as fast as his or her car allows...


I've never heard of this "natural unalienable" right. On what do they base their conclusion?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by John Harrison

You have no idea what confiscation he is talking about but then continue to write about the very thing he speaks of. Amazing. And these "criminals" you speak of were guilty of owning a rifle that was legal one day and illegal the next. Pardon me if I :rolleyes:.

As I've said, several times now, guns get confiscated in CA for any number of reasons, I merely asked for clarification. Neither I, nor the state of CA, refered to the owners as criminals. They were granted a generous amnestry period to turn in the illegal weapons.
Some people convicted of felonies has weapons confiscated as well, how do you feel about that?

As was pointed out previously, this is a cosmetic change to the firearm. It didn't change the way it works.

??? Where did you learn about guns, comic books? A detachable vs. fixed magazine is in NO WAY a cosmetic change! A cosmetic change would be painting your gun a different color. A rifle with a detachable magazine can be reload by swapping the magazine or manual feeding. A fixed magazine can only be reload manually.
What are you going to claim next, full vs. semi-auto is a cosmetic change? Get real.
And if it just a "cosmetic" change, why don't you accept the fixed magazine version? After all, it works exactly the same according to you!

More hyperbole. The facts however show that CA in particular continue to ban more and more firearms, and have used registration in concert with confiscation. You don't have to be paranoid to understand facts.

The facts are that crooked gun manufactures keep trying to skirt the ban by exploiting loopholes in the legislation. Like selling kits to convert legal weapons to illegal ones. So the laws have to be expanded to close the loopholes.

Find it hard to breathe with your head in the sand?

You tell me, tough guy.

The law is changed each year to include more and more firearms. I fail to see how this is zero interest in disarming the public.

Yes, because more and more gun manufacturers are putting out assault weapons that exploit loopholes in the legislation. So more and more guns are going to get banned.
I believe the person that complained about confiscation is against the assault weapon laws as well as the registration laws. So am I.

Fine, whatever. Its a different issue. Until you can demonstrate the state of CA is confiscating legal firearms your argument holds no weight. Its just more paranoid ranting.

[Shinytop]

Well, EvilYeti, you are fast approaching moron status instead of just somebody not knowing what is going on. What do you classify as an assault weapon? The laws are talking about pistol grips and muzzle brakes and flash suppressors. How do these make an otherwise basic semi auto weapon an assault weapon? Are these not just cosmetic changes?

And you never did respond to the lies regarding the registration and later confiscation by the Governor and the legislature. Ah yes, FM status all the way. And a troll besides.

Paranoia is only when they are not out to get you. The government of the state of California is out to disarm the public, one step at a time. Seems like it would be more effective to disarm the criminals but that would take actual work instead of just lies.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Well, EvilYeti, you are fast approaching moron status instead of just somebody not knowing what is going on. What do you classify as an assault weapon? The laws are talking about pistol grips and muzzle brakes and flash suppressors. How do these make an otherwise basic semi auto weapon an assault weapon? Are these not just cosmetic changes?

Wow, more ad-homs from the nutball and nothing of substance. Can't you folks provide anything other than paranoid rantings?
The SKS confiscations were due to a DETACHABLE magazine! Do you think that qualifies as a cosmetic change?

And you never did respond to the lies regarding the registration and later confiscation by the Governor and the legislature. Ah yes, FM status all the way. And a troll besides.

Gee, you never responded to my request for hard numbers regarding the number of confiscated weapons vs. registrations. Why is that? Oh yeah, you are a paranoid lunatic with nothing to bring to debate other than insane rantings.

Paranoia is only when they are not out to get you. The government of the state of California is out to disarm the public, one step at a time. Seems like it would be more effective to disarm the criminals but that would take actual work instead of just lies.
Criminals have guns confiscated all the time, look it up. But you won't, people like you never do, because you have no interest in the truth.
If the state of CA is really interested in disarming the public, they certainly aren't doing a very good job of it, as every gun owner I know still hasn't had anything confiscated!

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Wow, more ad-homs from the nutball and nothing of substance.

Just an observation...

I hope you realize that this statement is much more applicable to your posts.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I'm with Danish. (What flavour are you, btw?) A gun is a more efficient killing machine. You will never rid society of homicide. You just try to minimisel it. Much as people try to control the road toll. Various countries resort to different levels of control.

But not nearly as efficient as a large pipe bomb stuffed with match heads. or a well placed molatov (sp) cocktail. or a well aimed automobile. or a mixture of fertilizer and fuel oil in an oil drum. and so on.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Just an observation...

I hope you realize that this statement is much more applicable to your posts.

Uhh, dude, why do you always single me out?

If you have something of substance relevant to the debate by all means present it, otherwise stay out of it.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Uhh, dude, why do you always single me out?

If you have something of substance relevant to the debate by all means present it, otherwise stay out of it.

Then why are you participating?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Shinytop

Then why are you participating?

Wow, zero content from you, again.

Where are those numbers I asked for?

[Shinytop]

Only a poster of your ilk would demand answers without answering a single question. Facts are that one confiscation after lying to the citizens is too much. Where are your answers?

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Tony
It's that damn Japanese bow & arrow culture, when will they ever learn?

I'll be damned if you ever see me in Japan, what with arrows and such flying around, one is likely to get killed. :p


uhhh... Tony...

The Japanese Worship Katana's

Not Bows and Arrows.

A Katana can cut a Machine gun in half with one strike!

[Tony]

Originally posted by ((^-_-^))



uhhh... Tony...

The Japanese Worship Katana's

Not Bows and Arrows.

A Katana can cut a Machine gun in half with one strike!

I was joking when I said that, sorry it wasnt more obvious.


BTW. Thanks for the info, you learn something new everyday.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by ((^-_-^))


The Japanese Worship Katana's

Not Bows and Arrows.



But you have to get close to use your Katana.

Before you do, I will have felled you with a single ya from my Yumi!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shinytop
In 1998 California passed an assault weapons ban that allowed current gun owners to register their weapons in order to keep them. The next year they confiscated many of the weapons they had said would be allowed if registered. You can paint it any way you want, but the fact remain that California treated gun owners as criminals and lied to them to get votes for one act and then ignored their own promises.

By the way, in case anyone is unclear on this, this is called ex post facto and is against the Constitution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If its well regulated, the citizen can show just cause and is not a felon, sure.

And what other of our fundamental rights do you believe we should show "just cause" for? Should I have to show just cause when I want to start a newspaper? Do I only get to plead the fifth if I can show just cause for doing so?

I'm not in favor of random citizens carrying concealed weapons, as random citizens are morons. They can't even use a cell phone without crashing their car, why should we trust them with automatic weapons?

This speaks volumes about the kind of person you are and how little we should regard your opinion in these matters.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

And what other of our fundamental rights do you believe we should show "just cause" for? Should I have to show just cause when I want to start a newspaper? Do I only get to plead the fifth if I can show just cause for doing so?

None of the rights in the Constitution are absolute. In fact, it says so right in the second amendment, referring to a "well regulated" militia. Once your "freedoms" start infringing on everyon elses expect some serious regulation to follow. Unless you think, like most Libertarians, that your freedoms are worth more than mine. Ever read "Animal Farm"?

This speaks volumes about the kind of person you are and how little we should regard your opinion in these matters.

Doesn't it ever bother you that no one here takes you seriously? How do you think that reflects on the LP?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
None of the rights in the Constitution are absolute. In fact, it says so right in the second amendment, referring to a "well regulated" militia.

:eek:

:confused:

Do you have anything to back up this bizarre interpretation??

Was something lost when you translated the text or something??

Or is this (as I suspect) just your own personal (and absolutely warped, IMO...) interpretation??

The "militia" was viewed as being necessary for maintaining the freedom of the people by guarding against encroachment on our rights and freedoms by the government.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Unless you think, like most Libertarians, that your freedoms are worth more than mine.

This is another one of yoru pathetic lies about Libertarians and shows just how desperate you are and to what depths of dishonesty you're willing to sink to. I have never seen you contribute anything positive to a thread. You merely wish to trar others down to make yourself feel good.

In short: shut up, troll.

[Kodiak]

http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/waffen/violent-smiley-043.gif