RE: Why is it? (Full Version)

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



Message

joether -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 1:50:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
In Texas, blaze orange is only required when hunting on public lands, not required hunting on private land, which makes sense, since there is usually only one hunter per 500 acres.


Assuming no one is poaching on those private lands. An there have been many examples of a hunter straying well of course into another person's lands to kill small, furry, woodland animals. Last I checked, 'orienteering' is not a concept taught in most hunting and gun usage courses. When those smartphones fail or run out of juice, the grand majority of people do not know how to read a map and compass. While practicing the fine art of camouflage in the woods is fun to do; remember that not all hunters are as smart or wise as you are, jlf1961. Now, how smart and wise do you think you are? Carry the orange unless your very sure no one else is on your private land.




eulero83 -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 1:54:36 PM)

FR

even if it seems I dislike guns from some post I wrote here, I like firearms in general and I'm saving to buy a special kind of carabine for a sport I'd like to practise, and I agree with castle doctrine, what concerns (read "would scare if not at 7000km") me about the USA's attitude to guns is first how much situation you can use it in self defence, second how anarcich the trade is, and not much for homicides, if you plan to kill someone there are a lot of alternatives, but mostly for property or drug crimes where it's easier for an american criminal to be prepared.



BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 2:36:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

FR

even if it seems I dislike guns from some post I wrote here, I like firearms in general and I'm saving to buy a special kind of carabine for a sport I'd like to practise, and I agree with castle doctrine, what concerns (read "would scare if not at 7000km") me about the USA's attitude to guns is first how much situation you can use it in self defence, second how anarcich the trade is, and not much for homicides, if you plan to kill someone there are a lot of alternatives, but mostly for property or drug crimes where it's easier for an american criminal to be prepared.

While your argument has a certain logic as far as it goes with a gun ban the criminal element, being younger and stronger for the most part, would have a greater advantage and no need to "prepare".



joether -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 3:01:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
quote:

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.

I've searched for the OTHER parts of the 2nd amendment you speak of, maybe you can point me to a link that show's them?


Are you...REALLY...this dumb? Allow me to spell out the parts of the 2nd amendment:

1 ) A well regulated militia,
2 ) being necessary to the security of a free state,
3 ) the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
4 ) shall not be infringed.

An if your having problems understanding the format, here is the 8th amendment:

1 ) Excessive bail shall not be required,
2 ) nor excessive fines imposed,
3 ) nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Do I have to do this with the other twenty-five amendments currently on the books, or do you understand the format? How I'm using 'parts' is different from how others use 'parts' when referring to the 2nd amendment.

Yes, most gun owners hate the first and second parts of the 2nd amendment and often ignore them. They dislike the idea of having to be physically in shape, group up with people who don't share their same opinions on things, and must follow the orders of someone they disagree with (more so if that person is a liberal democrat). You can not follow the parts of a law that you agree and not the WHOLE law (you know, the parts you don't like). Otherwise we might as well throw all the laws off the books, since no one will follow them and descend rapidity into anarchy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
this is what I FIND when I do a search, on MULTIPLE SITES

There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them

As passed by the Congress: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.

As ratified by the States: 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.


This thread is not taking into consideration the views of individual states in the current year. But rather the view the OP had of gun control advocates attacking the 2nd amendment. So my original piece was meant to help jlf1961 gain some insight to one of the big underlining problems of law: trust. Or the lack of it that is both growing and seeping across the nation. That its origins stem from within the conservative ranks and go in all directions from there (blaming them at this point is rather a waste of resources). An now, we have Americans distrusting each other on a wide assort of topics and issues. I feel the 2nd amendment might be a good way of explaining why this distrust continues to grow. If Americans wish to have firearms and their states created the rules, I'm fine with them. How many times have you seen me posting threads bitching about Texas lax gun laws? I've made POSTS within threads commenting on the rules within Texas, but never started off bitching about the state's gun laws (since I don't live in Texas). But if your going to state that the 2nd amendment protects your firearms from laws made at a federal level....well....your part of the local, "well regulated militia". No 'Ifs', no 'Buts' no 'Exceptions'. You do not have the right to ignore parts of laws you do not like. The 2nd amendment is in effect, a law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
but apparently the SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH ME, but I guess you KNOW BETTER THAN THEM???


This would be the same Supreme Court that stated Corporations are people too? In your opinion, are Corporations people; an that they should get all the rights and privileges of ordinary US Citizens while enjoying all the freedoms for being a corporation?

Are you afraid I might know better? You don't know me on a personal basis, so 'yes', it would be hard for you to actually trust me. An right there, is that underlining problem in America: trust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.


And the case was badly interpreted by people who had a political and/or financial agenda. Before this case was decided, the District of Columbia was already heavy with crime and violence. Once outside the 'federal areas' of D.C., has that crime and violence diminished strictly due to the citizens obtaining firearms? Post the unbiased source....

It has also been shown that judges are not entirely neutral. They are human, prone to all the same problems any other person is prone to. Just because your made a judge or are one for a few dozen years does not automatically give you 'wisdom of the ages'. Another underlining component to the nation's problems that not address along with 'trust'....wisdom. An their bad decisions have created more problems that will take a very long time to sort out. Can you tell me with absolute certainty that the ones deciding on the case did not also have an agenda?

Yes, Scalia ruled in favor of the NRA. It has been pointed out numerous times this particular justice was....NOT....neutral on many different topics. But that has....ALWAYS....sided with the GOP. Good luck arguing that this guy is neutral....

This is the information from that trial, as a summery:

quote:


Dick Heller (P) is a special police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller’s application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home.


SOURCE

Removing the financial and political agenda of the court case leaves the following: A member of "A well regulated militia..." asking to keep a firearm in their home. A police officer of a police station within a village, town, or local area, would fit the 18th century definition of "a well regulated militia" in 2013 terms (he is held accountable and responsible for his actions already with a firearm). If you or myself were to do this, and assuming neither one of us were active in any legal law enforcement 'militias', 'no', we could not have a firearm in our home. We would need to elect officials (having both lived in D.C.) to office who create a new law that removes this definition from the current books; thus making it possible for the average citizen to obtain a registration and keep a firearm in their home. That is exactly how the founding fathers intended our system of government to work!

An that was the point of my posts on this thread: When you ignore the first half (parts 1 & 2) of the 2nd Amendment, and corrupt the second half (Parts 3 & 4); you can interpret the law however you want. An if that helps you politically and financially, do you do it? Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, libertarians, liberals, moderates....the whole of us allowed corruption to flourish by turning a blind eye to the wisdom.

I'm a liberal kind of guy in the sense I like to have options and ways of looking at an issue from several different viewpoints. I REALLY don't want the 2nd amendment to be removed. Nor have it fucked with the way its being fucked now by all sides. Am I liberal on this issue? Since liberals want the 2nd amendment neutered/removed for financial and/or political reasons. I trust myself with a firearm, and that of my friends, neighbors and associates. Yet, I can not trust the other millions of my fellow Americans due to just not knowing them enough to place trust in them. Where as laws created regulated how arms are bought, used, handle, and transported would at the least, fulfill the requirement I have on 'trust'. The existence of 'government' related to the 2nd amendment means those with guns are held to a strict duty to make sure those weapons (be they muskets, M-4s, Storm Bolters, or BFG 9000's) are NEVER missed used. An when they are, those that breached the duty are penalized for their action(s).



jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 3:04:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
In Texas, blaze orange is only required when hunting on public lands, not required hunting on private land, which makes sense, since there is usually only one hunter per 500 acres.


Assuming no one is poaching on those private lands. An there have been many examples of a hunter straying well of course into another person's lands to kill small, furry, woodland animals. Last I checked, 'orienteering' is not a concept taught in most hunting and gun usage courses. When those smartphones fail or run out of juice, the grand majority of people do not know how to read a map and compass. While practicing the fine art of camouflage in the woods is fun to do; remember that not all hunters are as smart or wise as you are, jlf1961. Now, how smart and wise do you think you are? Carry the orange unless your very sure no one else is on your private land.





Lets see, I dont use a deer lease, and my land I hunt on is posted (plus I own it) the only way another hunter could "accidentally" get in my hunting area is to cross a fence, with no trespassing signs every 50 feet, it would be interesting, especially since few people are familiar enough with that property to know the best places to actually look for the deer.

Now as for the other five people that I allow to hunt, each of us has a specific day of the week, no chance of bumping into each other.



jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 4:34:19 PM)

No one has really explained why we should not judge all gun owners on the actions of a few. Everyone has screamed about safety, criminals and although I was accused of it, even brought up a comparison of cars and guns.

So I will put it bluntly:

Anyone that screams about not judging all Muslims and continues to condemn gun owners are nothing more than hypocrites.

In every segment of the population you are going to find extremists and idiots.

If you advocate the periodic inspection of firearms by law enforcement, to make sure they are being used properly or accounted for, then the same needs to be done for Muslims, right wing extremists like Rush, Beck and those who follow their every word.



Yachtie -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 4:43:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

No one has really explained why we should not judge all gun owners on the actions of a few. Everyone has screamed about safety, criminals and although I was accused of it, even brought up a comparison of cars and guns.

So I will put it bluntly:

Anyone that screams about not judging all Muslims and continues to condemn gun owners are nothing more than hypocrites.

In every segment of the population you are going to find extremists and idiots.

If you advocate the periodic inspection of firearms by law enforcement, to make sure they are being used properly or accounted for, then the same needs to be done for Muslims, right wing extremists like Rush, Beck and those who follow their every word.



Lets not discriminate. Inspect everyone, and charge a $50 fee for it too. [;)]



BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 5:06:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
quote:

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.

I've searched for the OTHER parts of the 2nd amendment you speak of, maybe you can point me to a link that show's them?


Are you...REALLY...this dumb? Allow me to spell out the parts of the 2nd amendment:

1 ) A well regulated militia,
2 ) being necessary to the security of a free state,
3 ) the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
4 ) shall not be infringed.

An if your having problems understanding the format, here is the 8th amendment:

1 ) Excessive bail shall not be required,
2 ) nor excessive fines imposed,
3 ) nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Do I have to do this with the other twenty-five amendments currently on the books, or do you understand the format? How I'm using 'parts' is different from how others use 'parts' when referring to the 2nd amendment.

Yes, most gun owners hate the first and second parts of the 2nd amendment and often ignore them. They dislike the idea of having to be physically in shape, group up with people who don't share their same opinions on things, and must follow the orders of someone they disagree with (more so if that person is a liberal democrat). You can not follow the parts of a law that you agree and not the WHOLE law (you know, the parts you don't like). Otherwise we might as well throw all the laws off the books, since no one will follow them and descend rapidity into anarchy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
this is what I FIND when I do a search, on MULTIPLE SITES

There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them

As passed by the Congress: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.

As ratified by the States: 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.


This thread is not taking into consideration the views of individual states in the current year. But rather the view the OP had of gun control advocates attacking the 2nd amendment. So my original piece was meant to help jlf1961 gain some insight to one of the big underlining problems of law: trust. Or the lack of it that is both growing and seeping across the nation. That its origins stem from within the conservative ranks and go in all directions from there (blaming them at this point is rather a waste of resources). An now, we have Americans distrusting each other on a wide assort of topics and issues. I feel the 2nd amendment might be a good way of explaining why this distrust continues to grow. If Americans wish to have firearms and their states created the rules, I'm fine with them. How many times have you seen me posting threads bitching about Texas lax gun laws? I've made POSTS within threads commenting on the rules within Texas, but never started off bitching about the state's gun laws (since I don't live in Texas). But if your going to state that the 2nd amendment protects your firearms from laws made at a federal level....well....your part of the local, "well regulated militia". No 'Ifs', no 'Buts' no 'Exceptions'. You do not have the right to ignore parts of laws you do not like. The 2nd amendment is in effect, a law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
but apparently the SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH ME, but I guess you KNOW BETTER THAN THEM???


This would be the same Supreme Court that stated Corporations are people too? In your opinion, are Corporations people; an that they should get all the rights and privileges of ordinary US Citizens while enjoying all the freedoms for being a corporation?

Are you afraid I might know better? You don't know me on a personal basis, so 'yes', it would be hard for you to actually trust me. An right there, is that underlining problem in America: trust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.


And the case was badly interpreted by people who had a political and/or financial agenda. Before this case was decided, the District of Columbia was already heavy with crime and violence. Once outside the 'federal areas' of D.C., has that crime and violence diminished strictly due to the citizens obtaining firearms? Post the unbiased source....

It has also been shown that judges are not entirely neutral. They are human, prone to all the same problems any other person is prone to. Just because your made a judge or are one for a few dozen years does not automatically give you 'wisdom of the ages'. Another underlining component to the nation's problems that not address along with 'trust'....wisdom. An their bad decisions have created more problems that will take a very long time to sort out. Can you tell me with absolute certainty that the ones deciding on the case did not also have an agenda?

Yes, Scalia ruled in favor of the NRA. It has been pointed out numerous times this particular justice was....NOT....neutral on many different topics. But that has....ALWAYS....sided with the GOP. Good luck arguing that this guy is neutral....

This is the information from that trial, as a summery:

quote:


Dick Heller (P) is a special police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller’s application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home.


SOURCE

Removing the financial and political agenda of the court case leaves the following: A member of "A well regulated militia..." asking to keep a firearm in their home. A police officer of a police station within a village, town, or local area, would fit the 18th century definition of "a well regulated militia" in 2013 terms (he is held accountable and responsible for his actions already with a firearm). If you or myself were to do this, and assuming neither one of us were active in any legal law enforcement 'militias', 'no', we could not have a firearm in our home. We would need to elect officials (having both lived in D.C.) to office who create a new law that removes this definition from the current books; thus making it possible for the average citizen to obtain a registration and keep a firearm in their home. That is exactly how the founding fathers intended our system of government to work!

An that was the point of my posts on this thread: When you ignore the first half (parts 1 & 2) of the 2nd Amendment, and corrupt the second half (Parts 3 & 4); you can interpret the law however you want. An if that helps you politically and financially, do you do it? Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, libertarians, liberals, moderates....the whole of us allowed corruption to flourish by turning a blind eye to the wisdom.

I'm a liberal kind of guy in the sense I like to have options and ways of looking at an issue from several different viewpoints. I REALLY don't want the 2nd amendment to be removed. Nor have it fucked with the way its being fucked now by all sides. Am I liberal on this issue? Since liberals want the 2nd amendment neutered/removed for financial and/or political reasons. I trust myself with a firearm, and that of my friends, neighbors and associates. Yet, I can not trust the other millions of my fellow Americans due to just not knowing them enough to place trust in them. Where as laws created regulated how arms are bought, used, handle, and transported would at the least, fulfill the requirement I have on 'trust'. The existence of 'government' related to the 2nd amendment means those with guns are held to a strict duty to make sure those weapons (be they muskets, M-4s, Storm Bolters, or BFG 9000's) are NEVER missed used. An when they are, those that breached the duty are penalized for their action(s).


DUDE you can write pages and pages and page tryng to say that commas inticate SEPERATE parts of the consitution

but EVERY SCOLAR, every lawyer, and every judges sees it differantly

and QUOTES from the people who WROTE and SIGNED it say CLEARLY they mean ALL PEOPLE, not just militias...


http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee May, 1788.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

wasn't it YOU who said we cannot know the frame of mind of the people who WROTE the consitution at the time, I think those quote make it QUITE CLEAR what their frame of mind was, that ALL CITIZENS be allowed to have arms!


at best its can be broken into two parts

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State

1)A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (note the absence of that EXTRA COMMA?)

which defines WHY the second part the actual RIGHT is necessary

2)the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (again NOTE the ANSENCE of that EXTRA COMMA?)


I like how you DISMISS the SUPREME COURT as ROOKIE JUDGES too
HAHAHAHA

you don't get to be a SUPREME COURT JUDGE by handling traffic court in poodunk junction!

ALSO MR I wanna follow the consitution to the LETTER GUY. there is that OTHER part of the consitution that says, on constitutional matter, the SUPREME COURT is the end all be all on any and ALL ISSUES regarding the consitution

gun rights have been before the supreme court MANY TIMES, and not ONCE has a ruling come down that interperts it as YOU DO!

this is NOT ONE JUDGE, its a consensous of MANY judges threw out history!



DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 6:21:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
WRONG? as I think I have seen you say MANY MANY TIMES NOW, care to show a citaction, or link, some evidence that supports your stance?
you always make it incumbant on the person making a claim to PROVE THIER POINT, maybe you could do what you demand of others?

It's always funny to set you off. I keep thinking you will learn but ...

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunter_Orange_Commission_Report_W_Options.pdf
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/safety/instructors/firearms/history.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9186.html


well first of all you didn't "set me off"

second none of those links show that the reason they were required was because HUNTERS were OPERATING FIREARMS IN AN UNSAFE MANOR

the first link shows alot of grapgs abd stats, but a tNO POINT ever calls hunter irresponisble or negligent in ANY WAY WHAT SO EVER...

fact is it SUPPORTS exactly what I said, just a COMMON SENSE RULE, and in NO WAY does it state or IMPLY hunter were being UNSAFE

Are you unable to read English?
quote:

There are four main causes of hunting incidents according to the IHEA:
 Vision-related, such as mistaking another person for game, not checking the foreground or background before firing, or covering another hunter while winging on game.

quote:

MAJOR CAUSES OF OREGON HUNTING INCIDENTS
Vision-related incidents are the single biggest cause of hunting-related incidents in Oregon.

IOW dumbass hunters who should not ever be allowed to touch a firearm are shooting at something they failed to positively identify which violates the very first and most basic rule of safely using a firearm. That is always know what you're shooting!



dcnovice -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 6:25:10 PM)

NM.



Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 6:35:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Are you...REALLY...this dumb? Allow me to spell out the parts of the 2nd amendment:

1 ) A well regulated militia,
2 ) being necessary to the security of a free state,
3 ) the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
4 ) shall not be infringed.

Actually, there are only two parts to the Second Amendment. There is the introductory subordinate clause setting forth the rationale for the right, followed by the main clause in which the right is stated. Accordingly, your analysis is crap. See also here:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4542769

K.



BenevolentM -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 7:50:36 PM)

An interesting dark horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_horse is,

Why is it?
1324 hits / 150 posts = 8.8 hits per post



BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 9:53:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
WRONG? as I think I have seen you say MANY MANY TIMES NOW, care to show a citaction, or link, some evidence that supports your stance?
you always make it incumbant on the person making a claim to PROVE THIER POINT, maybe you could do what you demand of others?

It's always funny to set you off. I keep thinking you will learn but ...

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunter_Orange_Commission_Report_W_Options.pdf
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/safety/instructors/firearms/history.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9186.html


well first of all you didn't "set me off"

second none of those links show that the reason they were required was because HUNTERS were OPERATING FIREARMS IN AN UNSAFE MANOR

the first link shows alot of grapgs abd stats, but a tNO POINT ever calls hunter irresponisble or negligent in ANY WAY WHAT SO EVER...

fact is it SUPPORTS exactly what I said, just a COMMON SENSE RULE, and in NO WAY does it state or IMPLY hunter were being UNSAFE

Are you unable to read English?
quote:

There are four main causes of hunting incidents according to the IHEA:
 Vision-related, such as mistaking another person for game, not checking the foreground or background before firing, or covering another hunter while winging on game.

quote:

MAJOR CAUSES OF OREGON HUNTING INCIDENTS
Vision-related incidents are the single biggest cause of hunting-related incidents in Oregon.

IOW dumbass hunters who should not ever be allowed to touch a firearm are shooting at something they failed to positively identify which violates the very first and most basic rule of safely using a firearm. That is always know what you're shooting!

I read english just FINE, whats more I COMPREHEND IT WELL TOO

suppose you answer this question, if your link SUPPORTS you contention that the reason vests are were REQUIRED is because hunters were being irresponsible, then WHY after this report did that state NOT require orange vests?

I am sorry but it seems to me YOU are the one habing english problems, or at least comprehension problems, you rlink clearly supports what I said, its just a good ole common sense idea they decided, like other saftey devices, should be REQUIRED

not once was the word IRRESPONSIBLE, or NEGLIGENT used in any of the three links you posted

the EXACT SAME argument coul dbe made for almost every saftey device that is not required by law

for instance

Vision-related incidents are the single biggest cause of night time driving-related incidents in Oregon, so headlights were required

Vision-related incidents are the single biggest cause of rain weather-related incidents in Oregon, so wipers were required

in NO WAY do those statments say ANYONE was negligent or irresponsible

lets also examine the text you profer as evidence

Vision-related, such as mistaking another person for game, not checking the foreground or background before firing, or covering another hunter while winging on game.
I am assuming the bolded part is the part you incorrectly assume means. "IOW dumbass hunters who should not ever be allowed to touch a firearm are shooting at something they failed to positively identify"

note the words BACKGROUND and FOREGROUND...

lets assume I am the hunter, I can POSTIVLY IDENTIFY a DEER and fire at it, but if there is a person in the fore/back ground who's apparel blends will with the foilage I might well NOT SEE THEM, miss my POSITIVLY IDENTIFIED TARGET and hit someone BEHIND or that steps IN FRONT og my target!

hence the COMMON SENSE orange vest requirment!

and I am not saying the scenerio you desribe NEVER HAPPENS, just that it wasn't SO RAMPANT that it REQUIRED a law be passed. you are just blowing it out of proprtion to reality to support your WILD CLAIMS!



eulero83 -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 10:40:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

FR

even if it seems I dislike guns from some post I wrote here, I like firearms in general and I'm saving to buy a special kind of carabine for a sport I'd like to practise, and I agree with castle doctrine, what concerns (read "would scare if not at 7000km") me about the USA's attitude to guns is first how much situation you can use it in self defence, second how anarcich the trade is, and not much for homicides, if you plan to kill someone there are a lot of alternatives, but mostly for property or drug crimes where it's easier for an american criminal to be prepared.

While your argument has a certain logic as far as it goes with a gun ban the criminal element, being younger and stronger for the most part, would have a greater advantage and no need to "prepare".


sorry but english is not my language and i can't understand what you mean with "as far as it goes with a gun ban the criminal element" anyway what I'm saying is I have nothing against gun owners as a category as I see many legitimate uses for them and I plan to join soon that category, it's just that for me "gun are no toys", like cars are neither, and shooting someone is an extreme act, than looking at what is USA's attitude to guns I see it creates many problems for public safety strating from the fact you need more guns to protect from the huge ammount of guns that circulates, so you are in a dog beating it's tie situation for how I see it from outside.



BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 10:50:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Are you...REALLY...this dumb? Allow me to spell out the parts of the 2nd amendment:

1 ) A well regulated militia,
2 ) being necessary to the security of a free state,
3 ) the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
4 ) shall not be infringed.

Actually, there are only two parts to the Second Amendment. There is the introductory subordinate clause setting forth the rationale for the right, followed by the main clause in which the right is stated. Accordingly, your analysis is crap. See also here:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4542769

K.


pretty much what I said, you said it better, but I'd also like to point out one other FLAW in his logic

if we are consider them as 4 seperate parts they need to be able to STAND ALONE on thier own merits

in other words
each part has to have some kind of comprehensible MEANING, AKA MAKE SENSE by itself

A well regulated militia makes NO SENSE when read as a SEPERATE part
being necessary to the security of a free state makes NO SENSE when as a seperate part

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is an UNDERSTANDABLE STATMENT

According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,[175] in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:[175][176]

1.The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.[175][176]

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22

one other note regarding the COMMA's he inserted, and I am going to SHORTEN THIS CONSIDERABLY

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[105]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill / reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[107] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House in late August 1789

These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma

On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[112] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

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.[113]



BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 11:39:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

FR

even if it seems I dislike guns from some post I wrote here, I like firearms in general and I'm saving to buy a special kind of carabine for a sport I'd like to practise, and I agree with castle doctrine, what concerns (read "would scare if not at 7000km") me about the USA's attitude to guns is first how much situation you can use it in self defence, second how anarcich the trade is, and not much for homicides, if you plan to kill someone there are a lot of alternatives, but mostly for property or drug crimes where it's easier for an american criminal to be prepared.

While your argument has a certain logic as far as it goes with a gun ban the criminal element, being younger and stronger for the most part, would have a greater advantage and no need to "prepare".


sorry but english is not my language and i can't understand what you mean with "as far as it goes with a gun ban the criminal element" anyway what I'm saying is I have nothing against gun owners as a category as I see many legitimate uses for them and I plan to join soon that category, it's just that for me "gun are no toys", like cars are neither, and shooting someone is an extreme act, than looking at what is USA's attitude to guns I see it creates many problems for public safety strating from the fact you need more guns to protect from the huge ammount of guns that circulates, so you are in a dog beating it's tie situation for how I see it from outside.

As far as it goes means that there is another step that needed to be taken in your examples.
That being that if you eliminate guns from the equation the criminals advantage is increased.
This is because those who commit crimes tend to be younger and stronger than their intended victims.
I am 63, I would have virtually no chance against a 20 year old in a knife fight.
In a gun fight I could hold my own against 2 20 year olds.



eulero83 -> RE: Why is it? (9/12/2013 1:02:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

FR

even if it seems I dislike guns from some post I wrote here, I like firearms in general and I'm saving to buy a special kind of carabine for a sport I'd like to practise, and I agree with castle doctrine, what concerns (read "would scare if not at 7000km") me about the USA's attitude to guns is first how much situation you can use it in self defence, second how anarcich the trade is, and not much for homicides, if you plan to kill someone there are a lot of alternatives, but mostly for property or drug crimes where it's easier for an american criminal to be prepared.

While your argument has a certain logic as far as it goes with a gun ban the criminal element, being younger and stronger for the most part, would have a greater advantage and no need to "prepare".


sorry but english is not my language and i can't understand what you mean with "as far as it goes with a gun ban the criminal element" anyway what I'm saying is I have nothing against gun owners as a category as I see many legitimate uses for them and I plan to join soon that category, it's just that for me "gun are no toys", like cars are neither, and shooting someone is an extreme act, than looking at what is USA's attitude to guns I see it creates many problems for public safety strating from the fact you need more guns to protect from the huge ammount of guns that circulates, so you are in a dog beating it's tie situation for how I see it from outside.

As far as it goes means that there is another step that needed to be taken in your examples.
That being that if you eliminate guns from the equation the criminals advantage is increased.
This is because those who commit crimes tend to be younger and stronger than their intended victims.
I am 63, I would have virtually no chance against a 20 year old in a knife fight.
In a gun fight I could hold my own against 2 20 year olds.


Always this dicotomy or guns without any control or no guns at all... In my country there is nothing like 2nd emendament, but if I want a gun for personal protection I go to the police station in my city ask for a permit having no criminal records I'm granted it, the big difference is I can't resell to whoever individual I want and that I'm entitled to self defence in specific situation and when actually threatened not just because I percieve something bad and discuss if it was opportune later in fron of a dozen morons.
But I feel safe without a gun, I walked in mine and other cities alone in the night and nothing ever happened me, just avoid that one dark area in the park where drug dealers stay or the one where prostitutes are walking the street.
By the way against two 63yo with guns you have limited chance either, what I was telling is the problem is not if gun owners as a category are disturbed person but that also criminals with little resource can get their hands on one easly,most of the junkies here can only paint black the red tap on a toygun.



BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/12/2013 2:10:23 AM)

I can still catch flies barehanded and I can didn't learn to shoot from watching movies so you are wrong. My problem is endurance not ability. Any fight over a minute and I am in trouble.
Bad guys here don't use toy guns. They use knifes or guns. And I live in the middle of an area overrun with drug dealers. What do you suggest, that I avoid my front yard?



DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/12/2013 3:44:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Are you unable to read English?
quote:

There are four main causes of hunting incidents according to the IHEA:
 Vision-related, such as mistaking another person for game, not checking the foreground or background before firing, or covering another hunter while winging on game.

quote:

MAJOR CAUSES OF OREGON HUNTING INCIDENTS
Vision-related incidents are the single biggest cause of hunting-related incidents in Oregon.

IOW dumbass hunters who should not ever be allowed to touch a firearm are shooting at something they failed to positively identify which violates the very first and most basic rule of safely using a firearm. That is always know what you're shooting!

I read english just FINE, whats more I COMPREHEND IT WELL TOO

suppose you answer this question, if your link SUPPORTS you contention that the reason vests are were REQUIRED is because hunters were being irresponsible, then WHY after this report did that state NOT require orange vests?

The report recommends doing so. State legislators don't always vote to do the right thing. 40 or so states do require orange and have for decades.

And no matter how much you write the report does clearly say people are getting shot because hunters are irresponsible. Even if your fantasy that any significant number of these shootings are hitting something in front of or behind the target, which is ludicrous, that is still a violation of the most basic safety rule of shooting. You must always positively identify your target and ensure that you know what else is around the target. You don't position a blind so that you are shooting towards nearby houses or roads for that reason.



eulero83 -> RE: Why is it? (9/12/2013 4:11:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I can still catch flies barehanded and I can didn't learn to shoot from watching movies so you are wrong. My problem is endurance not ability. Any fight over a minute and I am in trouble.
Bad guys here don't use toy guns. They use knifes or guns. And I live in the middle of an area overrun with drug dealers. What do you suggest, that I avoid my front yard?


It's not they use toy gun because they are good in spirit and don't want to hurt anyone it's just that it's virtually impossible if you don't have a lot of money buy a gun that has serial number ereased so most of small criminals can't have, probably because privately selling to individuals is virtually impossible and if your gun is missing or worse used by somebady elses in a crime you'll have lot and lot of troubles, but with the GUN CONSUMISM you had in the past and don't want to change, and I'm sorry but I don't know if you'll ever be able to turn back, every ghetto scumbag could start a quicker career in crime with less burocracy and little capital, because of that now in your neighbourhood is closer to the third world than how it's acceptable.
As I told you I don't oppose to your owning a gun, and I also think you are perfectly right to shoot an intruder inside your home or shop or smeone that points a knife to you (if someone points a gun to me I don't think I would have time enough to draw mine so...) but this won't change the fact your area is overrun with drug dealers, that's not normal in a developed country.

Just curious about how many times did you need to use your gun in your 63years of life?



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.859375E-02