RE: Why is it?

RE: Why is it? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 11:03:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4363388/mpage_1/tm.htm K.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 11:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: After the government gave you permission to buy a car you would have to get separate and more restricted permission to drive it off of your property To carry a handgun, you need that permission now. To purchase a machine gun, you need that permission now. Unless, of course, you go through a private sale. If cars were treated like guns you would need permission from the federal government to buy a car. After you bought it you would need to prove to your state that you "needed" to drive it off your property. Even then the state could dictate to you how many passengers your car could carry and what size gas tank it could have. You could be denied the right to purchase said automobile if someone in your state government didn't like the way it looked. If your type of auto was in too many accidents you could have your car taken from you with only token reimbursement.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 11:15:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4363388/mpage_1/tm.htm K. Again thank you

epiphiny43 -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 11:17:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape. I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful.* My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. *My bold It disturbs me that people feel qualified to discuss gun issues and seem to never have even heard of Gary Kleck's studies on actual gun uses in American communities. This suggests only material reinforcing existing opinions/prejudices is allowed to exist in their world? Both sides of most issues are composed of people doing this. Why Democracy isn't working any better than just about anything else?

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 11:58:11 PM)
Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape Or as in my experience send them running off into the darkness BEFORE completing the crime.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 12:05:08 AM)
quote: If cars were treated like guns you would need permission from the federal government to buy a car. After you bought it you would need to prove to your state that you "needed" to drive it off your property. Even then the state could dictate to you how many passengers your car could carry and what size gas tank it could have. You could be denied the right to purchase said automobile if someone in your state government didn't like the way it looked. If your type of auto was in too many accidents you could have your car taken from you with only token reimbursement. You need special permission to buy a hand gun from your neighbor? A shot gun? Many states do not regulate the sales of shot guns or rifles. Nor are private sales regulated inmost states. Negates the rest of your argument.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 3:13:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic guns only have ONE use Guns have only one MAIN purpose, and that is to emit a projectile at high velocity. Where and for what reason that projectile is emitted is dependent upon the person controlling the gun. I used to hunt, but don't any longer. And since quitting hunting I have fired guns thousands of times and never killed a thing. Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. That won't happen if you show someone your car or doctor, or threaten someone with what pharmaceutical company your aspirin comes from. If you waggle a car at someone, its not gonna kill em, if you waggle a knife at someone its not gonna kill em, if you waggle a baseball bat at someone it isnt gonna killem... yes and in the wrong hands USED against a person, they will kill a person..... its the person behind a gun, not just the weapon Ive fired a gun not thousands of times, but certainly more than 100...ive not intimidated anyone with one, Ive USED It to shoot holes in things,,but not anything with a pulse

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 3:13:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If cars were treated like guns you would need permission from the federal government to buy a car. After you bought it you would need to prove to your state that you "needed" to drive it off your property. Even then the state could dictate to you how many passengers your car could carry and what size gas tank it could have. You could be denied the right to purchase said automobile if someone in your state government didn't like the way it looked. If your type of auto was in too many accidents you could have your car taken from you with only token reimbursement. You need special permission to buy a hand gun from your neighbor? A shot gun? Many states do not regulate the sales of shot guns or rifles. Nor are private sales regulated inmost states. Negates the rest of your argument. negates nothing

joether -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 3:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin now lets discuss the ACTUAL words here a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. no where in there does it say, that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to those in a militia, it says, people have the right to keep and bear arms so that when necessary a militia can be formed, and people will already be armed and ready to form it That is because "....the right to keep and bear arms...." is in the THIRD part of the 2nd Amendment. The 1st is explaining the nature of a militia. The second part explains the duty of a militia. The third part explains that people of the militia in good standing may keep their militia weapon(s) in their homes, ready to handle problems. The fourth part of the amendment explains that the government can not ORDER the militia to surrender its arms. You do not know the difference between a 'militia' and 'a gang of thugs'. The first one is generally trained to handle problems as a unit rather than a 'zerg group' typical of 'a gang of thugs'. A well regulated militia is much different from 'gathering who ever has a gun to fight them Indians". No zerg group with even odds will ever take on an organized group, with experienced leaders, disciplined members and coordinated fire....and win. An what is a zerg? Look it up. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin lets consider the frame of mind of the people who wrote this, they were people who had just very recently finished a war, a war that was fought mostly by state militias whose members brought thier OWN WEAPONS to the fields... You want to debate James Madison's frame of mind when he wrote that amendment? By all means, bring forth the documents from a certified psychologist or psychiatrist whom interviewed Mr. Madison at the time to find that information out. It sounds silly because it is silly. The ones that argued over this amendment and others were not the ones on the front lines of those battles. Unless you want to show me the evidence that Thomas Jefferson actually strode across those battlefields under enemy musket and cannon fire? I honestly do not think anyone is exactly qualified or hold enough credibility to say exactly what any of those men were thinking as the amendment was being written, argument and finalized. We are unfortunately limited to only the written word. An there are plenty of fake Thomas Jefferson quotes floating around. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin the right was established so when a militia is needed, it wouldn't take week or longer to equip people, they show up WITH THIER OWN WEAPONS ready to fight! Actually, the militia would get together on the town commons to drill. Marching, standing at attention, following directions, presenting arms to superior rank individuals, etc. They were NOT seasoned troops and were quite limited in tactical formations and knowledge. While on the town common, politicians would give speeches, the wives gossip, the kids play and in many cases it was a festive event in its own right. It was a chance for neighbors across town to get together and catch up on the 'goings on'. The right itself was establish so that militias could STILL be formed. You might know that back then, the USA did not have the impressive military force of 2013.... quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin I am sorry but I beleive you have it backwards, the right is so militia can be QUICKLY FORMED when NEEDED, it not a right LIMITED to people already IN A MILITIA If you have to form a militia from scratch, on the spur of the moment, to go into battle against an enemy you do not understand; you might as well lay down in the coffin as you'll soon be there! The militias were used as a local police force to protect the area from really dangerous things. An to help the towns and villages that surrounded it. These militias would often train with other militias from other towns. When the militias when marching to neighboring towns, they would place the town they were enter militia first in line (i.e. vanguard position). That way they could be the heroes leading the other militias. If those wished to have their arms protected under the 2nd amendment, they were to join the local militia. If they did not, they were at the mercy of their elected officials in laws created/maintained. Which meant they would study their elected people in far greater detail than most Americans do today. Ironic since we have exceedingly better media sources than they did over two hundred years ago, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin these people were pretty smart and wrote things pretty clearly, and if what you was what they meant it would read more like this If they wrote thinks pretty clearly for future generations, why is this topic so hotly contested in the nation? They would have no way of knowing exactly what would happen ten years in their future let alone over two hundred years! If they knew the problems Americans had with the 2nd amendment (or any of the others in the Bill of Rights....including the 3rd) in 2013, don't you think they would have been much....clearer? The bottom line is they believe future generations of Americans would know best how to run the nation. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But this is NOT how it was written, so its irrelevant. All the parts of each of the amendments 'fit' together. The 8th amendment talks about four types of things that law breakers can expect NOT to have happen to them. They didn't have to imply a specific group of people since the reason for the whole constitution was to define the government's role in all those found under its control. Those convicted of crimes were just one of those groups of people. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin sorry if they had meant MILITIAS ONLY they would have clearly said that! but they chose the word PEOPLE, people being EVERYONE, not ONLY people IN A MILITIA! Oh, those that wrote and voted on the US Constitution had to have perfect knowledge of events that would span 200+ years into the future, to define every aspect of the document? Doesn't that sound just....a little...silly if not insane? You can not predict the Powerball jackpot numbers, and you expect these guys to do a number of more complicated things? They implied the militia, its duties, limits and rights; this is the whole of the 2nd amendment. Just because you disagree doesn't make it untrue. They did not know back then what an "Army of One" would have meant.... ...Which is what your implying the 2nd actually means. It doesn't say "...the right of the individual to keep and bear arms....". What makes up "A well regulated militia...."? PEOPLE. Therefore, the people that make up that well regulated militia can keep and bear arms. I didn't write the law, nor voted on it; so don't blame me for how they created and voted on it!

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 3:25:43 AM)
Your obvious confusion indicates you have not read the Federalist papers in which he explains what he was thinking at the time. Read that, particularly number 46 and get back to us when you are better educated.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 3:36:39 AM)
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH omg thats irony of the day

joether -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 4:33:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Your obvious confusion indicates you have not read the Federalist papers in which he explains what he was thinking at the time. Read that, particularly number 46 and get back to us when you are better educated. Thank you for proving my point that we Americans in 2013 are limited to only a few written words of those individuals at the time. There were not videos taken of the time period (or at least none that have survived to this date). Nor are their audio recordings of those events. There are paintings of the event; but how much historical accuracy can be gained from such media? An the written word, as its been shown with the 2nd amendment itself, can be retold/corrupted in any manner that servers someone's/some ogranization's agenda. If your going to use the Federalist Papers, #46. Then its fair to say that only well regulated militias can not be limited on their arms. Since who the hell in 2013 writes: "These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error."? Nobody writes that way in 2013! When was the last time you hear or saw a conservative refer to a liberal at a firearms debate as a 'gentleman' when explaining they are in 'error' and not 'just wrong'? That particular papers does indeed talk about quite a few things. But by comparison, its a simple understanding of concepts in an era considerably more complex. They did not have to deal with people who after receiving some sort of horrible trauma, breaking down and going on a rampage with a musket that shot thirty balls in four seconds and killing/injuring a dozen people. An that this attacker's next salvo could be replenished within a couple of seconds. Have you ever tried to fire 30 shots from a musket in Madison's era in under ten seconds? Their cannons of their era would be laughable by the US Military's artillery (you do know we have nuclear weapons, right?). Madison states a great many pieces of wisdom, but unfortunately he could never understand circumstances in the far future of the nation. If we were to show Madison the firepower of the average infantryman, what would the man say (after he stopped pissing in his pants and babbling for twenty minutes incoherently)? Those articles are limiting in knowledge to us. They can help us, but not dictate how we lead our lives. The founding fathers believed future generations would not cling to rules like some theocracy. But as learned, educated men whom would decide the best wisdom of the day as part of their duty as elected persons of the people in their states.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 5:02:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Your obvious confusion indicates you have not read the Federalist papers in which he explains what he was thinking at the time. Read that, particularly number 46 and get back to us when you are better educated. Thank you for proving my point that we Americans in 2013 are limited to only a few written words of those individuals at the time. There were not videos taken of the time period (or at least none that have survived to this date). Nor are their audio recordings of those events. There are paintings of the event; but how much historical accuracy can be gained from such media? An the written word, as its been shown with the 2nd amendment itself, can be retold/corrupted in any manner that servers someone's/some ogranization's agenda. If your going to use the Federalist Papers, #46. Then its fair to say that only well regulated militias can not be limited on their arms. Since who the hell in 2013 writes: "These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error."? Nobody writes that way in 2013! When was the last time you hear or saw a conservative refer to a liberal at a firearms debate as a 'gentleman' when explaining they are in 'error' and not 'just wrong'? That particular papers does indeed talk about quite a few things. But by comparison, its a simple understanding of concepts in an era considerably more complex. They did not have to deal with people who after receiving some sort of horrible trauma, breaking down and going on a rampage with a musket that shot thirty balls in four seconds and killing/injuring a dozen people. An that this attacker's next salvo could be replenished within a couple of seconds. Have you ever tried to fire 30 shots from a musket in Madison's era in under ten seconds? Their cannons of their era would be laughable by the US Military's artillery (you do know we have nuclear weapons, right?). Madison states a great many pieces of wisdom, but unfortunately he could never understand circumstances in the far future of the nation. If we were to show Madison the firepower of the average infantryman, what would the man say (after he stopped pissing in his pants and babbling for twenty minutes incoherently)? Those articles are limiting in knowledge to us. They can help us, but not dictate how we lead our lives. The founding fathers believed future generations would not cling to rules like some theocracy. But as learned, educated men whom would decide the best wisdom of the day as part of their duty as elected persons of the people in their states. So when you found out we were right about what he was thinking you dismiss him as obsolete no wonder liberals are no longer called gntlemen

jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 5:27:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Im not going to give you a response on your question because you are making assumptions all over the damn pleace. guns only have ONE use And in your opinion what is that ONE use?

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 5:56:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape. I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. Most studies say that the former exceeds the latter by a margin of between 2 and 4 to 1 In the case of a firearm stopping a crime as long as nobody gets shot it tends to go unreported, I know of about half a dozen such cases none of which were reported, I mean what do you say "I almost was assaulted but they ran screaming into the night when they realized I was armed" ? link? Since showing a weapon is technically assault legally you do need to report and justify it or you're in violation of the concealed carry law in most states, committing a felony, like assault with a deadly weapon, is cause to lose a CCP.

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 6:04:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4363388/mpage_1/tm.htm K. LOL You really posted that nonsense again?

Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 6:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4363388/mpage_1/tm.htm LOL You really posted that nonsense again? Well no, I only linked to it. But let's not quibble. If a post is what you want, I'll post this again just for you. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz... have provided an almost clearcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. Reference: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+tribute+to+a+view+I+have+opposed.-a017819461 K.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 6:36:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape. I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. Most studies say that the former exceeds the latter by a margin of between 2 and 4 to 1 In the case of a firearm stopping a crime as long as nobody gets shot it tends to go unreported, I know of about half a dozen such cases none of which were reported, I mean what do you say "I almost was assaulted but they ran screaming into the night when they realized I was armed" ? link? Since showing a weapon is technically assault legally you do need to report and justify it or you're in violation of the concealed carry law in most states, committing a felony, like assault with a deadly weapon, is cause to lose a CCP. Of course the would be assailant is going to run right down to the cops and tell them about it. In my state they would consider it a waste of time They come on to my property and threaten me and I'm the criminal God do you have things turned around.

Yachtie -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 6:43:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Im not going to give you a response on your question because you are making assumptions all over the damn pleace. guns only have ONE use And in your opinion what is that ONE use? To go BANG! Naturally[:D]

Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 6:46:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether If those wished to have their arms protected under the 2nd amendment, they were to join the local militia. If they did not, they were at the mercy of their elected officials... To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ~Richard Henry Lee The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself ~George Washington To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. ~Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878 The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. ~Michigan Supreme Court, 1922 As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982 Armas para que ("Guns for what?") ~Fidel Castro K.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875