Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Gun control


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Gun control Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 10:26:37 AM   
substobbws


Posts: 65
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: substobbws

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL
Lynyrd Skynyrd

Two feets they come a creepin
like a black cat do
and two bodies are layin' naked.
Creeper think he got nothin' to lose.
So he creeps into this house, yeah
and unlocks the door
and as a man's reaching for his trousers
shoots him full of thirty-eight holes.
It's the Saturday night special
got a barrel that's blue and cold
ain't good for nothin
but put a man six feet in a hole
Big Jim's been drinkin' whiskey
and playin' poker on a losin' night
and pretty soon ol' Jim starts a thinkin
somebody been cheatin' and lyin'.
So big Jim commence to fightin',
I wouldn't tell you no lie.
Big Jim done pulled his pistol,
shot his friend right between the eyes.
It's the Saturday night special
got a barrel that's blue and cold
ain't good for nothin
but put a man six feet in a hole
Hand guns are made for killin',
they ain't no good for nothin' else.
And if you like to drink your whiskey
you might even shoot yourself.
So why don't we dump 'em people
to the bottom of the sea
before some ol' fool come around here,
wanna shoot either you or me.
It's the Saturday night special
you got a barrel that's blue and cold
you ain't good for nothin
but put a man six feet in a hole
It's the saturday night special
and I'd like to tell you what you could do with it
and that's the end of the song



If dumping them ALL in the sea were POSSIBLE, along with keeping more from being produced, I'd agree. We want the same end result/both have good intentions. Just disagree on what works and what doesn't. That's why I attack what you say, but not you.

LOL, you're pulling Skynyrd out on someone from the Southeast? You might wanna holster THAT gun! 


Man, I saw Skynyrd like 15 times.Along w/ the Outlaws and 38 Special.Damm! those were good days.<sigh>

I was heart broken and very sad when their jet crashed.
I was a senior in high school.I still miss them.I like the new band also,but..........

Ronnie VanZant,...rest in peace.....


Saw .38 Special at a chili cookoff about 10 years ago. Have also seen Little Feat, Marshall Tucker, Atlanta Rythm Section, Edgar Winter, Georgia Satellites, and whoever else I'm forgetting at the same annual cookoff. They just started doing tribute bands instead a couple years ago. Not as authentic, but the quantity seems to make up for it.

http://www.theatlantachilicookoff.com/

LOL, just look for the pics to verify any Southern stereotypes you may already have. You GOTTA click on #12 and the few after it in the 2006 pics. They give prizes for best booth/display, which is the reason for all the costumes.

The park's worth going to, anyways. If you go that weekend you get an outdoor concert and the opportunity to sample more chili than most humans are capable of for around ten bucks. Has it's own campground, so you don't have far to go when it's over. What's awesome is getting up Sunday morning and doing a breakfast buffet on the outdoor balcony at the Marriot, with a view of the mountain and the tram going up and down it. 

< Message edited by substobbws -- 8/11/2007 10:33:24 AM >

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 10:36:10 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		I'm not sure about NRA'ers, not being a member, but can say that your side is never going to win on this issue, largely due to your presentation being completely illogical.
 
You say the founding fathers were brilliant. Most would agree.
 
When you read the opinions of the founding fathers, it's pretty clear that one of the groups they want the people to have the ability to defend themselves against, is their own government.
 
The government has tanks, and machine guns, and bombs, etc ...
 
You have been railing against President Bush on this board for a few months. That's fine too ... if anyone ever deserved it, he would be the one.
 
In this thread, you want to deny the people the right to take action, should a madman ever take control of the government. Rest assured, is could happen. It can happen in even the most sophisticated countries, and we aren't one of the most sophisticated countries.
 
You know ... most sane people are shocked when something tragic happens, and a gun was involved, or a knife, or a car, or a bridge. What you may want to consider, is what the cost in lives would be, if a madman took over control of a country with as much military power as the United States.
 
The whole point you are making, comes across as entirely illogical. I don't even have to debate the points with you ... you disprove your own points, with your other points.
 
This is why your side will never win on this issue.

_____________________________

I wish I could buy back ...
the woman you stole.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 11:45:37 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Caitlyn, correct.
And if they were to kill the Second Amendment which one would be next?
The First? The Seventh? The Fifth?
Keeping and bearing arms is not a "priviledge" it's a Right.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 11:45:41 AM   
Durus


Posts: 184
Joined: 7/9/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: substobbws

If dumping them ALL in the sea were POSSIBLE, along with keeping more from being produced, I'd agree.


Really? We have emprical evidence that a lack of firearms of any type does not result in less violence. Humans war with humans be it with stick and rock, swords and knives, or guns and bombs. If magically every firearm dissapeared tomorrow you would only increase the power of the strong over the weak.

(in reply to substobbws)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 11:56:52 AM   
Durus


Posts: 184
Joined: 7/9/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
They were,and they did.They were brilliant.

That`s why they set up an amendment system,so the document could change with the times.It was designed to not be rigid,or unchangeable.Of course changing the constitution takes quite a bit of effort,but that also,is by design.

That`s why I scoff when people compare today`s situation w/ the 1700s,forgetting that the laws have evolved for over 200 years,to where they are today.


You aregument wanders all over the place depending on whom you are answering. You claim that arms doesn't include firearms when that is plainly wrong. You argue that a gun in home is more dangerous then it provides safety and you were shown to be wrong there as well. You claim that the constitution can change with the times but explicitly state that there is an amendment process admitting that the only way the constitution can be changed is via the amendment process. The 2nd amendment has not been changed and therefore the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. It's really that simple although you don't like it. Gun control laws have been proven to be ineffective at best and a precurser to tyranny at worst. What is your motive? Innefective laws that do nothing except make it harder for people to defend themselves or do you want tyranny?

It's also important to keep in mind that our founding fathers did not see that 2nd amendment as granting a right. They saw it as a natural right of all men to be able to defend themselves with the most efffective weapons possible. The 2nd amendment merely states that the government should not interfere with this natural right. If the 2nd amendment were to be amended away tomorrow all law abiding people would still have the natural right to bear arms.

(spelling edit)

< Message edited by Durus -- 8/11/2007 12:26:06 PM >

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 12:19:30 PM   
substobbws


Posts: 65
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Durus

quote:

ORIGINAL: substobbws

If dumping them ALL in the sea were POSSIBLE, along with keeping more from being produced, I'd agree.


Really? We have emprical evidence that a lack of firearms of any type does not result in less violence. Humans war with humans be it with stick and rock, swords and knives, or guns and bombs. If magically every firearm dissapeared tomorrow you would only increase the power of the strong over the weak.


You may be correct in that result. I'm sure that, on average, I'd rather die in a war by gunshot than by a sword. I don't know if guns having never been invented would have ever deterred any leaders from deciding they could take another country.

My main point is that gun control laws don't work once guns are in the hands of both, criminals who would use them, and law abiding citizens against whom they would be used. A law won't disarm both sides. It's like thinking you can deal with a country the same way before and after it acquires nuclear weapons. I don't think it's realistic thinking.

What criminal is going to say "Oh, shit. They've banned my gun. I'd better go turn it in"?  

It's like I remember some radio commentator talking many years ago right after the hijack days about the signs in airports that depicted the old cartoon black round bomb in a circle with a slash through it. Like he asked, "Who's that for?" What hijacker was going to get to that point and say "Shit, the sign got me!" Or is it part of a couple asking "Honey, you DID remember to take the bomb out of the suitcase before we left the house. Right?" 

< Message edited by substobbws -- 8/11/2007 12:24:44 PM >

(in reply to Durus)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 12:24:31 PM   
Durus


Posts: 184
Joined: 7/9/2007
Status: offline 		I may be correct? Should I list for you the wars we had before firearms were invented (or used in war)?

Regardless I think we basically agree with the concept that gun laws are at a minimum miguided.

(in reply to substobbws)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 12:28:58 PM   
substobbws


Posts: 65
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Durus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
They were,and they did.They were brilliant.

That`s why they set up an amendment system,so the document could change with the times.It was designed to not be rigid,or unchangeable.Of course changing the constitution takes quite a bit of effort,but that also,is by design.

That`s why I scoff when people compare today`s situation w/ the 1700s,forgetting that the laws have evolved for over 200 years,to where they are today.


You aregument wanders all over the place depending on whom you are answering. You claim that arms doesn't include firearms when that is plainly wrong. You argue that a gun in home is more dangerous then it provides safety and you were shown to be wrong there as well. You claim that the constitution can change with the times but explicitly state that there is an amendment process admitting that the only way the constitution can be changed is via the amendment process. The 2nd amendment has not been changed and therefore the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. It's really that simple although you don't like it. Gun control laws have been proven to be ineffective at best and a precurser to tyranny at worst. What is your motive? Innefective laws that do nothing except make it harder for people to defend themselves or do you want tyranny?

It's also important to keep in mind that our founding fathers did not see that 2nd amendment as granting a right. They saw it as a natural right of all men to be able to defend themselves with the most efffective weapons possible. The 2nd amendment merely states that the government should not interfere with this natural right. If the 2nd amendment were to be amended away tomorrow all law abiding people would still have the natural right to bear arms.

(spelling edit)


Thank you for that last part. Nobody "grants" you a right. If it's your right, it already WAS your right. A government can deny you your rights, but they are ALWAYS your rights.

< Message edited by substobbws -- 8/11/2007 12:29:31 PM >

(in reply to Durus)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 1:00:15 PM   
petslavennj


Posts: 4
Joined: 12/18/2006
Status: offline 		Those boards can be oh so dangerous! And just think, you can get them at any construction site! Where is regulation when you need it? Oh, that's right, there is a regulation stating that it is theft if you take that board! I guess regulation just doesn't work like it should! There is also a law stating you can't bash someone's head in. Hmmm.... That piece of legislation isn't working very well either. Hopefully it is a deterrent for many but it certainly does not cure the problem. Maybe we should ban the alcohol! Oh, then there are illegal stills and boy what an alcohol content they have! And then there are those farmers who keep that "illegal" alcohol behind the hay in the barn for when "friends" come over and there they are, enjoying each other's company, discussing the weather and almanac predictions. Talking about crop production and perhaps how they need to get together to help Tom down the road because his barn caught on fire and it needs to be rebuilt. Oh no, now they will need another board. And we all know what kind of trouble that can cause! substobbws, you hit the nail on the head, so to speak! We have to get board control in line now! And you know those farmers drinking moonshine would never pass a background check under the circumstances..... Whoooo, I am glad we can get that kind of behavior under control with legislation!

(in reply to substobbws)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 1:27:14 PM   
petslavennj


Posts: 4
Joined: 12/18/2006
Status: offline 		There is definitely a difference in how lethally inflicted wounds are perpetrated between items such as a knife or a gun. We each have different degrees of fear depending on what we are faced with. Some may fear a gun more than others. But in the end, the gun is not at fault. The person on the other end is. If my gun were allowed to get out into the public, as in most cases today, I would be held responsible to some degree. But I believe it is my right to own a gun. At one time it was for purposes such as killing snakes or other protection. And, as you know, Owner, I also lived with black bears. I chose to befriend them on a personal level. Others would have chosen to kill them. I did not agree with. A gun used for good intent should not be prohibited. There are sports such as skeet shooting that provides great hand eye coordination for young people and a sense of accomplishment. Often, becoming a great target shooter is of interest to some and then they go on to be our law enforcement officers. And for me, I am glad they took an interest to be a great shot and had the opportunity this country provides for many.
There needs to be regulations in place for many things. Let's talk about smoking regulation since it is applicable here in New Jersey. I am a non-smoker and have been my entire life. Well, sort of..... I have lived wtih smokeres most of my life. I can tell you my chest X Ray shows that there is evidence of lung involvement such as would be seen by a smoker. Now, when I say I do not smoke, I mean I do not smoke anything. When the regulations came out that there would be no more smoking in public places, I was thrilled. It opened the door for me to be able to frequent establishments that I could not frequent before because of the amount of smoke there. However, I do not believe that smokers should be devoid of their rights to smoke. Cigarettes are a deadly weapon. Moreso than guns. But even with that knowledge, if it is your desire to smoke, you should be allowed that right, just as I should be allowed the right to live in a smoke free environment. Sometimes we think regulating an object is the end all to our problems. It is not. There is a source to the problems and it begins with people, not the object.
Just because another's behavior has subjected me to physical consequences as evidenced on my chest X ray does not mean I should be angry with everyone who carries a pack of cigarettes and blame them for what has happened. They should still have the right to smoke. But we have learned that smoke in an enclosed environment, such as a restaurant, workplace, etc. can cause physical effects on those who work in or frequent those establishments. So we need to work at compromise and providing areas and situations where we both can live with our rights being maintained.
The same with guns. I own a gun. I have never killed anyone, shot anyone, shot anyone's house or property, or allowed my guns into the hands of an irresponsible person. There are people who have killed another, but should I pay the consequence of what another has done? People will get things like guns illegally regardless of legislation, and we all know that. Drugs are illegal, but all the regulation around has not stopped the trafficking of drugs. So why penalize innocent, responsible people for what those with psychotic issues have done? Shouldn't we compromise, work at legislation that affects those who commit the crimes, work on those who purchase guns illegally, and observe the rights of those who handle their guns responsibly and purchase them legally?
Just because I do not agree with what others do does not mean I want to take away their rights to do it. What would that say of me if that were the case?

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 7:58:15 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: petslavennj

There is definitely a difference in how lethally inflicted wounds are perpetrated between items such as a knife or a gun. We each have different degrees of fear depending on what we are faced with. Some may fear a gun more than others. But in the end, the gun is not at fault. The person on the other end is. If my gun were allowed to get out into the public, as in most cases today, I would be held responsible to some degree. But I believe it is my right to own a gun. At one time it was for purposes such as killing snakes or other protection. And, as you know, Owner, I also lived with black bears. I chose to befriend them on a personal level. Others would have chosen to kill them. I did not agree with. A gun used for good intent should not be prohibited. There are sports such as skeet shooting that provides great hand eye coordination for young people and a sense of accomplishment. Often, becoming a great target shooter is of interest to some and then they go on to be our law enforcement officers. And for me, I am glad they took an interest to be a great shot and had the opportunity this country provides for many.
There needs to be regulations in place for many things. Let's talk about smoking regulation since it is applicable here in New Jersey. I am a non-smoker and have been my entire life. Well, sort of..... I have lived wtih smokeres most of my life. I can tell you my chest X Ray shows that there is evidence of lung involvement such as would be seen by a smoker. Now, when I say I do not smoke, I mean I do not smoke anything. When the regulations came out that there would be no more smoking in public places, I was thrilled. It opened the door for me to be able to frequent establishments that I could not frequent before because of the amount of smoke there. However, I do not believe that smokers should be devoid of their rights to smoke. Cigarettes are a deadly weapon. Moreso than guns. But even with that knowledge, if it is your desire to smoke, you should be allowed that right, just as I should be allowed the right to live in a smoke free environment. Sometimes we think regulating an object is the end all to our problems. It is not. There is a source to the problems and it begins with people, not the object.
Just because another's behavior has subjected me to physical consequences as evidenced on my chest X ray does not mean I should be angry with everyone who carries a pack of cigarettes and blame them for what has happened. They should still have the right to smoke. But we have learned that smoke in an enclosed environment, such as a restaurant, workplace, etc. can cause physical effects on those who work in or frequent those establishments. So we need to work at compromise and providing areas and situations where we both can live with our rights being maintained.
The same with guns. I own a gun. I have never killed anyone, shot anyone, shot anyone's house or property, or allowed my guns into the hands of an irresponsible person. There are people who have killed another, but should I pay the consequence of what another has done? People will get things like guns illegally regardless of legislation, and we all know that. Drugs are illegal, but all the regulation around has not stopped the trafficking of drugs. So why penalize innocent, responsible people for what those with psychotic issues have done? Shouldn't we compromise, work at legislation that affects those who commit the crimes, work on those who purchase guns illegally, and observe the rights of those who handle their guns responsibly and purchase them legally?
Just because I do not agree with what others do does not mean I want to take away their rights to do it. What would that say of me if that were the case?


Good post,pet.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to petslavennj)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 8:19:27 PM   
LATEXBABY64


Posts: 2107
Joined: 4/8/2004
Status: offline 		i know one thing if someone breaks in  my house   they are their to do one thing hurt or harm  my mind goes into the survival mode and take them out quick fast no questions asked..

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 10:01:34 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		If they repeal the second amendment, we will all get to find out exactly how many weapons people have, how well trained they are, and how prepared our government is to handle an internal war. Maybe it was more genius than you think, repeal the second, and reveal the villians.

BTW, caitlyn you keep going as you are. For each one I wanted to reply to, you offered almost exactly what I would have.

Now then if we want to run the numbers:

Year 2000




Killed in car accidents
42,116

Killed by the common flu
20,000

Killed by murders
15,517

Killed in airline crashes
(of 477m passenger trips)
120 (1)

Killed by lightning strikes
90

Of those murders, 65.6% of them involved a firearm, so that would be 10179. Car accidents cause four times as many deaths, but we have less strict laws for using them. So why are people so up in arms about gun control costing lives?

Orion

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to LATEXBABY64)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Gun control - 8/11/2007 10:51:19 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I'm not sure about NRA'ers, not being a member, but can say that your side is never going to win on this issue, largely due to your presentation being completely illogical.
 
You say the founding fathers were brilliant. Most would agree.
 
When you read the opinions of the founding fathers, it's pretty clear that one of the groups they want the people to have the ability to defend themselves against, is their own government.
 
The government has tanks, and machine guns, and bombs, etc ...
 
You have been railing against President Bush on this board for a few months. That's fine too ... if anyone ever deserved it, he would be the one.
 
In this thread, you want to deny the people the right to take action, should a madman ever take control of the government. Rest assured, is could happen. It can happen in even the most sophisticated countries, and we aren't one of the most sophisticated countries.
 
You know ... most sane people are shocked when something tragic happens, and a gun was involved, or a knife, or a car, or a bridge. What you may want to consider, is what the cost in lives would be, if a madman took over control of a country with as much military power as the United States.
 
The whole point you are making, comes across as entirely illogical. I don't even have to debate the points with you ... you disprove your own points, with your other points.
 
This is why your side will never win on this issue.



"but can say that your side is never going to win on this issue, largely due to your presentation being completely illogical."
 
"This is why your side will never win on this issue."


Some of you have pegged me as being anti-gun,when I`m not.I own guns,and want others to as well.I haven`t said anything to the contrary.

And my side has already won,because I support how things are presently.The way I want things to be,is already law.I don`t support outlawing guns or taking them from people.Which, by the way,has never happend.How NRA types get their panties in a bunch would be funny,if it were not for the damage they do and have done.

"When you read the opinions of the founding fathers, it's pretty clear that one of the groups they want the people to have the ability to defend themselves against, is their own government."
 
  Show me exactly where you read that.Which writtings or opinions say such a thing ,or even eludes to such things.Who said that the people have to be able to defend themselves against the US government?I`ve heard this before,but only from the NRA types,never from a history book or school lessons.I`d like to know where this comes from,and what historians support this view.


"In this thread, you want to deny the people the right to take action, should a madman ever take control of the government. Rest assured, is could happen. It can happen in even the most sophisticated countries, and we aren't one of the most sophisticated countries. "
 
   I haven`t said that.So far,my only issue in this thread has been kids and guns,and how risky mixing them  can be.
The automatic, knee jerk defensive reaction some have had,drives them to think that any talk about gun control,means that someone wants to come and take their guns away.
I blame the NRA and it`s president, Wayne LaPierre, for this paranoia.They`ve been scaring some of the most gullible people in America,...republicans ,gun nuts ,militia types and the paranoids.
 
Little background  for those that aren`t into politics:

In '95',the president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre,called federal LEOs
"jack booted thugs",among other things,just after the Oklahoma bombing.That`s right,he described federal law officers as nazis.Shame on him!
 
This prompted Bush senior to quit his membership in the NRA,plus they were barred from some major gun show events.He and others in the NRA have been spreading lies and myths to frighten it`s members for years.There mags are full of propaganda ,and scare tactics.
 
This is not my father`s NRA.Years ago,the NRA was a good,and decent group,with normal people in it,like my dad.
Today,it`s lead by an extremist.If the NRA had fired LaPierre,after his ugly and vile words,I and most regular folks could support the NRA.That`s not possible now.
 It was clear that the NRA was supporting an extreme and dangerous person like   LaPierre,,and choose the path of the lunatic fringe.
.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa031400b.htm
 
 As far as sophistication goes,I think Americans are smarter than politicians and the media give us credit for,Paris Hilton,etc., excluded.
 

"The whole point you are making, comes across as entirely illogical. I don't even have to debate the points with you ... you disprove your own points, with your other points."

Why don`t you point out how I`m being illogical.I`d rather not take your word for it.Not trying to be obstinate,rather,I want to hear your arguments.
 


 
 

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Gun control - 8/12/2007 12:26:41 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		Million Gun March Petition
PETITION OF THE MILLION GUN MARCH

http://www.stanley2002.org/mgmpetition.htm


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Gun control - 8/12/2007 7:16:55 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
"When you read the opinions of the founding fathers, it's pretty clear that one of the groups they want the people to have the ability to defend themselves against, is their own government."
 
  Show me exactly where you read that.Which writtings or opinions say such a thing ,or even eludes to such things.Who said that the people have to be able to defend themselves against the US government?I`ve heard this before,but only from the NRA types,never from a history book or school lessons.I`d like to know where this comes from,and what historians support this view.


Perhaps this was never discussed in the schools you attended.
 
I posted a quick and handy link, with quotes like:

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

Now, if you really want a full understanding of how the founding fathers thought about this, you should read the actual Federalist Papers, which are available online in their original form. What you might find, is that about 60% of the text devoted to this topic, in the original papers, discuss protection of citizens from their own government and/or tyrants that might take over that government. There are also some websites that have opinions (like the one from Humphrey and Story above, that discuss parts taken from the Federalist Papers.
 
This, not from a NRA member, but from someone that does read a bit of history now and then.

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 8/12/2007 7:19:49 AM >

_____________________________

I wish I could buy back ...
the woman you stole.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Gun control - 8/12/2007 7:23:44 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline 		Nice cites Caitlyn...too bad your intended recipient has proven themselves immune to neutral factual references

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Gun control - 8/13/2007 3:42:44 PM   
Cuffkinks


Posts: 1780
Joined: 5/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
 

I don`t support outlawing guns or taking them from people.Which, by the way,has never happend.
 



We already went over this so I'll just repeat two words from My original response...

                                            New Orleans.

_____________________________

Resident "11"

"I love you, Sir. You make my heart sing and my panties wet. What more could a girl ask for?" - hejira92

"And that's why it's good to be...Me." - Gene $immons

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Gun control - 2/6/2008 6:03:27 AM   
ChallengeMe


Posts: 25
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline 		FROM owner59 "If you truly want to see a side by side,country to country comparison,watch "Bowling for Columbine",where Moore compares the US to Canada.



The theories of the NRAers fall apart,just on the face of it,when one just runs the numbers.

Of course the NRAers scoff at Moore,but not for being incorrect,but for telling the truths and realities of guns.

Not saying you`ll be swayed,but at least you won`t be going on opinion when it comes to who has the  more effective laws

Gun crime in Canada is far ,far lower then ours.And the real difference is the laws.You can legally own a gun in Canada,but they are stricter then say Utah,or North Dakota,or Michigan,just south of them.
"

Just watched it, in fact, for the first time (go figure)

The movie actually states several times that canada is similarly armed, yet strikingly less violent.

The moral of the movie is that it is not the weapons, nor the videogames, nor is it the music, movies, TV shows that cause American violence.

Moore cites the scare-tactic media/government as a far more likely source of the problem, as well as the USA's lack of social services for the poor, when compared to almost any other "industrialized" nation.

or, as the movie says, it could be the bowling.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Gun control - 2/6/2008 6:08:55 AM   
ChallengeMe


Posts: 25
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline 		one more thing...if you have 2 identical towns, and one has 500 machete killings, and the other has 2 shootings and 0 other killings, the town with the least crime has the most gun crime....so any time you hear someone compare only gun crime, you really have to wonder about other-weapon crime.

(in reply to ChallengeMe)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Gun control Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109