RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 5:24:41 PM)
WEST COVINA, California (AP) -- A woman was asking a 911 dispatcher for help when her pleas were interrupted by gunshots, then silence. She was shot to death. The woman told the dispatcher someone was trying to break into her home in upscale West Covina, Los Angeles County sheriff's Lt. Dan Rosenberg said. "Deputies heard gunshots followed by silence and an open phone line," he said. Deputies arrived at the house, 20 miles east of Los Angeles, a few minutes after Wednesday's late morning call. The woman, whose name was not released by police, had been shot several times. Paramedics pronounced her dead at the scene. http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/20/911.call.ap/index.html

farglebargle -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 5:27:33 PM)
http://www.publicenemy.com/index.php?page=page5&item=3&num=58 911 is a Joke Hit me Going, going, gone Now I dialed 911 a long time ago Don't you see how late they're reactin' They only come and they come when they wanna So get the morgue embalm the goner They don't care 'cause they stay paid anyway They teach ya like an ace they can't be betrayed I know you stumble with no use people If your life is on the line they you're dead today Late comings with the late comin' stretcher That's a body bag in disguise y'all betcha I call 'em body snatchers quick they come to fetch ya? With an autopsy ambulance just to dissect ya They are the kings 'cause they swing amputation Lose your arms, your legs to them it's compilation I can prove it to you watch the rotation It all adds up to a funky situation So get up get, get get down 911 is a joke in yo town Get up, get, get, get down Late 911 wears the late crown 911 is a joke Everyday they don't never come correct You can ask my man right here with the broken neck He's a witness to the job never bein' done He would've been in full in 8 9-11 Was a joke 'cause they always jokin' They the token to your life when it's croakin' They need to be in a pawn shop on a 911 is a joke we don't want 'em I call a cab 'cause a cab will come quicker The doctors huddle up and call a flea flicker The reason that I say that 'cause they Flick you off like fleas They be laughin' at ya while you're crawlin' on your knees And to the strength so go the length Thinkin' you are first when you really are tenth You better wake up and smell the real flavor Cause 911 is a fake life saver So get up, get, get get down 911 is a joke in yo town Get up, get, get, get down Late 911 wears the late crown Ow, ow 911 is a joke

Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 5:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver He spent the previous 12 years arming them. But this refers back to a point I made earlier in the thread, propaganda is what people should be arming themselves against. I know there has been a lot of propaganda by the NRA and American Riflemen claiming that the fascists used gun registrations to arrest people but the Nazis used all sorts of lists to arrest people. Hitler cut the German unemployment rate through arms production, there were more weapons and small arms available under the fascists than ever. Despite that, there was no critical mass against the Nazis for many social reasons and because Nazd propaganda was so effective. Which really proves my point, guns don't prevent tyranny, critical thought is a far better weapon. The only people hitler armed were his brownshirt thugs. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

CraZYWiLLiE -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 6:51:41 PM)
People kill people, not guns, not cars...people

Griswold -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 7:05:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I've always felt that anyone who needs the 2nd Amendment "Interpreted" for them is feeble-minded and mentally incompetent. The default option is: Freedom and Liberty. Yeah but...the argument has always been about "a free and open militia"... Do we need a (potential) militia today? I suspect the answer is "No". Did the Constitution allow, indeed, offer that? As to a militia, yes...again we come back to...do we need that? Would most Americans today support a right to own guns (in any state or jurisdiction...including DC)? If they did...would you want some of these wack jobs on your side? In the end, it's been proven that cities that are allowed to hold firearms (I hate guns personally) have lower crime rates. I think it's fairly obvious....when folks have armaments...crime...and those who would purport crime...are a smidge weary of fucking with people who MIGHT have guns. Roll the dice. I hate guns...and I don't plan on getting any in the near or distant future...but... It's fairly obvious...when the guy staring at you...is also staring at a gun barrel....he thinks differently. (I'm okay with that).

Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 7:27:15 PM)
As it has been explained above militia is any one over the age of 17 who can use a firearm. No guns = less crime is bull crap.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 10:01:19 PM)
Griswald quote: would you want some of these wack jobs on your side? I AM one of those wack jobs. I own military weapons, I have thousands of rounds of ammo (of course much of it is just.22) and I have more guns than I can remember. I also have more books than I have bookshelves for as well. I support liberal candidates and have worked with one over two elections who may well take a staunchly Republican seat in California. So you might want to question your generalizations...

Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 10:02:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold I hate guns...and I don't plan on getting any in the near or distant future...but... Fair enough. At least you're a pragmatist. But more commonly, I think wires get crossed when words like "love" and "hate" get into the discussion. People who say they love their guns aren't talking about snuggling up and patting noses or licking trigger-guards. You know that, or at least we both hope it's true! But I point out that the feeling they intend is different because, when people talk about hating guns, too often the feeling they intend isn't. They clearly really hate guns. The "but" in your post allows for exception (thank you). I don't always sense that, which is worrisome to me, because hatred for an inanimate object is irrational, and people motivated by irrational hatreds are in my opinion more dangerous than whatever they hate. K.

farglebargle -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/21/2008 3:54:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I've always felt that anyone who needs the 2nd Amendment "Interpreted" for them is feeble-minded and mentally incompetent. The default option is: Freedom and Liberty. Yeah but...the argument has always been about "a free and open militia"... Do we need a (potential) militia today? I suspect the answer is "No". Did the Constitution allow, indeed, offer that? AH! I think I see a problem. Do you believe that the Constitution GIVES YOU things? Rights? It doesn't. Your Creator gave you Rights and Free Will. The Constitution TELLS the Feds what they MAY do -- THEY do not have Rights OR Free Will, therefore their powers are Enumerated Specifically. quote: As to a militia, yes...again we come back to...do we need that? It's not about need. SLAVES "get what they need". WE "do what we choose". quote: Would most Americans today support a right to own guns (in any state or jurisdiction...including DC)? If they did...would you want some of these wack jobs on your side? "most Americans today" do support a right to own guns. BTW, it's not "The Right To Own Guns". It's actually The Right To Own PROPERTY. And isn't that what Freedom and Liberty is all about? Being left to do what you choose with your own property -- including your own self?

meatcleaver -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/21/2008 7:03:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver He spent the previous 12 years arming them. But this refers back to a point I made earlier in the thread, propaganda is what people should be arming themselves against. I know there has been a lot of propaganda by the NRA and American Riflemen claiming that the fascists used gun registrations to arrest people but the Nazis used all sorts of lists to arrest people. Hitler cut the German unemployment rate through arms production, there were more weapons and small arms available under the fascists than ever. Despite that, there was no critical mass against the Nazis for many social reasons and because Nazd propaganda was so effective. Which really proves my point, guns don't prevent tyranny, critical thought is a far better weapon. The only people hitler armed were his brownshirt thugs. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke. Read what you are quoting Moloch. The quote says subject people not Germans. Guns have proved irrelevent in preventing tyranny in a society, just as they have proved incapable of subjugating a people who have had enough which is why the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions were not prevented. There is a mass psychology at work which is far more important to the outcome of most confrontations than who does and who does not possess weapons. The Nazis succeeded as long as they did because they had substantial backing of the populace. One of the things that caused so much post war angst in France is the realization that there were more than a few of the French that were sympathic to the German fascists and who were happy to help them in the removal of Jews from French society.

CraZYWiLLiE -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/21/2008 10:27:55 AM)
Without the 2nd, then the rest are just words on paper, without the 2nd to back up those words.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/21/2008 12:12:10 PM)
quote: Guns have proved irrelevent in preventing tyranny in a society, just as they have proved incapable of subjugating a people who have had enough which is why the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions were not prevented. sure until p[eople wake up and find out they no longer have the tools they need to take their governmnet back. We can end up like berlin with no brick in one puece. People like to quote all the failed revolutions throughout history to make their point but forget about the one successful one that made america and almost gave us freedom. (at least for a couple years).

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/21/2008 12:17:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CraZYWiLLiE Without the 2nd, then the rest are just words on paper, without the 2nd to back up those words. Without the peoples brains firing on all 8 its just apiece of paper with words. Lots of people have no idea how those last few amendments enslaved us. Farg; we are slaves or at least serfs. Only serfs pay taxes on land and property! We live in a fuedal system and we are told its freedom. WOrse everyone believes its freedom too!!!! They dont need guns with a country full of dummies. If it was not so sad I would split a gut laughing!

Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/21/2008 2:13:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Guns have proved irrelevent in preventing tyranny in a society, just as they have proved incapable of subjugating a people who have had enough which is why the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions were not prevented. Uhh... Uh... due is this a joke? American Revolution. In case you didnt know we didnt defeat the Britsh by cuddling with them, he went out and shot them starting with the officers... "mass psychology" my ass we used bayonets and bullets to determine the outcome of the Revolutionary war.

Estring -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/21/2008 2:17:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Guns have proved irrelevent in preventing tyranny in a society, just as they have proved incapable of subjugating a people who have had enough which is why the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions were not prevented. Uhh... Uh... due is this a joke? American Revolution. In case you didnt know we didnt defeat the Britsh by cuddling with them, he went out and shot them starting with the officers... "mass psychology" my ass we used bayonets and bullets to determine the outcome of the Revolutionary war. Your point is a great one, but to try to explain to someone from a country which capitulated to the Nazis, they can't grasp such a concept.

meatcleaver -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/22/2008 7:18:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Guns have proved irrelevent in preventing tyranny in a society, just as they have proved incapable of subjugating a people who have had enough which is why the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions were not prevented. Uhh... Uh... due is this a joke? American Revolution. In case you didnt know we didnt defeat the Britsh by cuddling with them, he went out and shot them starting with the officers... "mass psychology" my ass we used bayonets and bullets to determine the outcome of the Revolutionary war. Your point is a great one, but to try to explain to someone from a country which capitulated to the Nazis, they can't grasp such a concept. Astually I might live in Holland but I'm British which makes your point redundant and the idea that a country the size of Holland could defeat the Germans is a nonsense, especially when Germany had the capacity to flatten Holland's second city in a single air raid. But then Americans sitting pretty intheir geographical isolation are pretty good at casting aspersions on everyone else.

meatcleaver -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/22/2008 7:34:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Guns have proved irrelevent in preventing tyranny in a society, just as they have proved incapable of subjugating a people who have had enough which is why the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions were not prevented. Uhh... Uh... due is this a joke? American Revolution. In case you didnt know we didnt defeat the Britsh by cuddling with them, he went out and shot them starting with the officers... "mass psychology" my ass we used bayonets and bullets to determine the outcome of the Revolutionary war. Read your history Moloch, you will find the American 'revolutionary' war was not a revolution but a war of independence which is why I did not list it in my post. The leaders of the rebels who were from the colonial establishment were not trying to overthrow the socio-economic order of the colonies but to wrench power from the British and entrench their own power. When they won, the new regime didn't widen suffrage in the colonies but restricted it, that is how revolutionary they were. The American constitution when it was written was not a revolutionary document but a conservative one which is why it still stands, there wasn't a need for a bourgeois counter revoltion because leaders of the 'revoltion' were the establishment anyway!!! Neither was the revolt 100% supported by the colonists, it was as much a civil war as a revolt which is why so many colonists fled north to Canada to escape the pograms after British surrender. The American colonial war for the British was just a small part of the imperial wars between the British, French and Spanish empires which is why the rebel colonists were supported by imperial France and it was the French the British surrendered to at York Town. You don't think imperial France supported the rebel colonies because they believed in republicanism do you? They didn't see the leaders of the rebel colonists as revolutionary nor were they.

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/22/2008 12:08:32 PM)
The problem with your reply is that Constitution is intentionally vague and was deliberately written so. Hence looking to it for answers and authority is problematic, because interpretive eyes will find different things. Thanks for taking on the question. I was looking at DC gun laws, and I must say I was surprised by how restrictive they were. State regulations are all over the place.

Crush -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/22/2008 12:19:30 PM)
quote: Bingo. ... (b) Are you arguing that citizens should be able to carry any weapon available today? Bazookas? AK-47s? Anti-aircraft guns? Tactical nukes? P.S. Nice new avatar pic. I want my tactical nuke!!! Seriously, There is no real need to define weapons people can keep, since it will be in line with what they can afford. The problem isn't owning the weapon...it is the use and misuse of the weapon that matters. Law abiding people, by definition, use them lawfully. But they aren't the ones we worry about anyway. Just the thugs and "the government" (sometimes one and the same) are of concern. Would I own an automatic weapon? Well, I can now, if I apply for the proper license and pay the associated fees. I own a Stinger Pengun (http://savvysurvivor.com/pocket_full_of_tricks.htm) just because it is a curiosity and I am a collector, not because it is one of my defense weapons. And that bullpup AK-47? Just because I wanted an "evil black rifle" for the collection. For home defense, give me a12 ga shotgun any day (though it won't fit in my pocket very well.) Not pump...semi-automatic. For hunting, a hunting rifle with a scope. And for personal defense, well, it varies based on what I'm wearing....small semi-auto, revolver, or whatever. For my wife, wardrobe counts, but for me, being able to defend myself is what matters. Shooting is a sport and is fun. Helps to focus your attention clearly and improves your ability to take in information to make decisions quickly. Putting holes in paper, or in the middle of a playing card even, is very satisfying. No blood necessary. Just remember this one quote: When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away..

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/23/2008 6:00:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush quote: Bingo. ... (b) Are you arguing that citizens should be able to carry any weapon available today? Bazookas? AK-47s? Anti-aircraft guns? Tactical nukes? P.S. Nice new avatar pic. I want my tactical nuke!!! While I draw the line at nukes, (states should have them however), all the rest is fair game. The purpose and intent was to have more than what the standing army had such that we could clean up the government if need be and if they tried to use the army we could beat them too. Not to worry, people are to terrified of their own shadows now days.

Page: << < prev 14 15 16 17 [18]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875