RE: The US and guns

RE: The US and guns (Full Version)

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

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 6:13:45 AM)
Like I said. paranoia.

Pulpsmack -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 6:15:11 AM)
RE-READ my definition of paranoia. UNREASONABLE fear. Canada is a socialized society consisting of racial homogenity and insignificant class strata. America is a capitalistic society with a significant disparity of class, as well as a diverse and often conflicting base of race and creed. Place opportunism, exploitationism, materialism, vast disparity, diversity, and the double standards (going both ways) for classes, creeds, and races, and you have a effectively sealed a pressure cooker. I won't go so far as to say which are the most significant, but I can say the radical difference between the US and Canada is that in Canada the people are significantly more cohesive and alike, physically as well as conditionally.

mistoferin -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 6:45:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It seems like different reasons for different people. If the argument is gun ownership is symbolic of your civil rights then I can understand this - every people values their freedom of choice. If the argument is for personal entertainment then, although I don't agree with the idea of hunting, I can understand why you want to hang on to your entertainment. For many, I would suggest to you that the purpose of hunting is not for it's entertainment value. It is a necessity. Not because cheap meat is inaccessible, but because it is a very necessary part of wildlife conservation. To say that you don't agree with hunting is to say that you do not agree with wildlife conservation. While there may be some out there who are doing this for kicks, most hunters take their responsibility quite seriously.

TahoeSadist -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 7:45:15 AM)
There are a couple parts to the anti-gun arguments that have always caught my eye, most of which show either an ignorance of history and logic or a willingness to ignore same. For one thing, look at the people who wrote the constitution: they just fought a revolution against Britain, a fight that was started with privately held weapons. Not just hunting weapons, but full on military armaments. Also, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence mentions that at times it is necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, so given that (and there are many more texts and documents to demonstrate this) logic says that the 2nd ammendment does not refer to just hunting weapons, or whatever the current political climate thinks is ok for civilians to own. Further reading of the Constitution will bear that out. Section 8 lists in detail the powers of Congress. One power is issuing letters of marque and reprisal. This hasn't been done since probably the War Between the States (if then), but what it does do is show that there was absolutely no prohibition against private citizens owning artillery and any other forms of up to date military hardware. Because letters of marque were issued to private citizens who used their own ships and such as vessels of war, to attack enemy shipping, territory, and occasionally warships. Obviously, to do so one must have the weaponry, and thus one must be allowed to own and purchase same. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a fre State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 Now I have seen some people who wish to say that "the people" here does not mean individuals. Some even make the more illogical conclusion that it means the National Guard, which was founded as an entity in 1903 (damn far sighted of the authors of the Constitution you have to admit LOL) To believe that "the people" in the Second ammendment refers to some sort of collective, you have to seperate that from: 1st Ammendment's "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 4th Ammendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" 10th Ammendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." which are all individual rights. Not really a logical conclusion. Then there's that last word used "infringed" It doesn't say "prohibited", "removed" etc. Infringed can be a very minor restriction or event, and they said that even that is too much, so this right is not to be even "infringed" upon. Eric

EnglishDomNW -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 8:15:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom I envy many things about Europe, the health care, the smaller scale of living, the urban planning that makes public transportation possible, the food in many placed other than England but I do not envy your civil rights. In what way are the civil rights of England any worse or better than America?

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 9:58:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It seems like different reasons for different people. If the argument is gun ownership is symbolic of your civil rights then I can understand this - every people values their freedom of choice. If the argument is for personal entertainment then, although I don't agree with the idea of hunting, I can understand why you want to hang on to your entertainment. For many, I would suggest to you that the purpose of hunting is not for it's entertainment value. It is a necessity. Not because cheap meat is inaccessible, but because it is a very necessary part of wildlife conservation. To say that you don't agree with hunting is to say that you do not agree with wildlife conservation. While there may be some out there who are doing this for kicks, most hunters take their responsibility quite seriously. Fair enough. My mistake.

ToGiveDivine -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 10:02:19 AM)
Why don't we all just shoot our mouths off - it usually isn't fatal ROFL

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 11:27:22 AM)
quote: The more military type weapons that didnt exsist when the founding fathers wrote up the Bill of Rights are the problem, I dont think they invisioned Ice Cube saying it was a good day because he didnt even have to use his AK. At the time of the Revolution, civilians DID have more advanced weaponry than the military and they absolutely envisoned Ice Cube, thus the part about "ensuring domestic tranquility" which has been denied blacks in this country. quote: The ease with which someone can get there hands on these types of weapons is one of the more serious issues dealing with guns in the US. Guerrilla comanders in Bosnia where sending people over to the US during the war there in the 90's to buy military grade weapons from private dealers here and ship them back to equip their fighters That is complete and utter horseshit and as someone who has actually met Kalishnakov and who's library contains many books signed to me by the authors, I know a bit about the gun business. IF they bought anything, it was those "hunting rifles" which are actually MORE lethan than ANY military sniper rifle and I don't believe they bought anything. The price for a military AK on the world market is pennies on the dollar compared to a civilian legal US ak.

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 11:29:53 AM)
We can publish secret materials leaked to us, you can't. While I believe you have better papers and reporters, technically our papers are freerer to operate than yours.

LadyEllen -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 11:35:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom We can publish secret materials leaked to us, you can't. While I believe you have better papers and reporters, technically our papers are freerer to operate than yours. Wow! Your papers and reporters must really be bad then! Ours are rubbish - and they can print pretty much what they like about anyone who doesnt have the money to sue for libel. E

toservez -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 11:42:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin For many, I would suggest to you that the purpose of hunting is not for it's entertainment value. It is a necessity. Not because cheap meat is inaccessible, but because it is a very necessary part of wildlife conservation. To say that you don't agree with hunting is to say that you do not agree with wildlife conservation. While there may be some out there who are doing this for kicks, most hunters take their responsibility quite seriously. I do not argue the very good point you make, but I always thought most men go hunting to get away from their women and to drink and play poker with the guys. :)

mnottertail -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 11:43:25 AM)
LOLOLOL! Very insightful. Ron

mistoferin -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 11:49:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toservez I do not argue the very good point you make, but I always thought most men go hunting to get away from their women and to drink and play poker with the guys. :) LMAO....that reminds me of the story of the husband who went away hunting every year and never got a deer. The wife suspected that maybe he never really hunted. Upon his return from his trip, empty handed once again, she asked him if he had a good time. He said he had a great time....but that he had to go out and buy some new underwear as she had forgotten to pack his. She got up and walked over and picked up his gun case, opened it....and there, lo and behold were all of his underwear.....which she had wrapped around the barrel of his gun when she packed!!!

caitlyn -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 12:04:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You may a bright girl, I haven't seen many of your posts so can't say but improved discussion skills would certainly improve the all round package. I'm just bright enough to realize that discussing with you is futile, because no answer anyone is going to give to any of your 'questions' is going to be good enough for you. [;)]

LaTigresse -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 12:05:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: toservez I do not argue the very good point you make, but I always thought most men go hunting to get away from their women and to drink and play poker with the guys. :) LMAO....that reminds me of the story of the husband who went away hunting every year and never got a deer. The wife suspected that maybe he never really hunted. Upon his return from his trip, empty handed once again, she asked him if he had a good time. He said he had a great time....but that he had to go out and buy some new underwear as she had forgotten to pack his. She got up and walked over and picked up his gun case, opened it....and there, lo and behold were all of his underwear.....which she had wrapped around the barrel of his gun when she packed!!! Now that is funny!

KenDckey -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 1:18:57 PM)
Gent I dont agree with 90% of what you have to say. That is ok Disagreement is a good thing sometimes. But this time you asked to be educated. You wanted to know about the facination of Americans with Guns. What you got wayt o much of was politics (not related to the subject) indictments of the government (not related to the subject) morality of gun ownership (not related to the subject). In fact you really didn't get much in the way of an education. What you did get was retoric I find this unfrotunate and shows those in the thread in a bad light. How about we get back to educating NG?

sissifytoserve -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 2:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Like I said. paranoia. Heh..not quite. There are 3 Hispanic drug/crime gangs in the city next to mine. La Familia, Latin Kings andone other set I cant think of at the moment. Those scum-of-the-earth are WELL armed...illegally. FAT chance I am going to give up mine with punks like that running around. Trust me.

Kaledorus -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 3:15:06 PM)
If England, which banned handguns and many other firearms a decade ago, is happy with civilian disarmament that is fine with me. I just oppose England, Japan, the United Nations trying to change my rights as a sovereign citizen of the United States through pressuring for an international gun prohibition treaty. If Londoners are safer now than they were 10 years ago on their streets good for them. A beautiful little woman, tiny, was accosted by 4 very large men, she saw them coming 50 feet and more away, but since this happened in New York City, which, like London, demands the civilian be helpless, by law, the little girl could do nothing but wait for these creatures to surround her and punch her and stomp her as she lay on the ground after her scream. No one in the row of houses looked out nor did any call the police. If that 80lb woman had had a pistol the attack would not have been completed. The victim disarmament laws ensure that the predators will always have an easy time. The police are very good at chalking the bodies afterwards but when it is happening you are on your own. "If laws worked, there would be no crime." --Claire Wolfe

Level -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 4:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TahoeSadist "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a fre State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 Now I have seen some people who wish to say that "the people" here does not mean individuals. Some even make the more illogical conclusion that it means the National Guard, which was founded as an entity in 1903 (damn far sighted of the authors of the Constitution you have to admit LOL) To believe that "the people" in the Second ammendment refers to some sort of collective, you have to seperate that from: 1st Ammendment's "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 4th Ammendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" 10th Ammendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." which are all individual rights. Not really a logical conclusion. Then there's that last word used "infringed" It doesn't say "prohibited", "removed" etc. Infringed can be a very minor restriction or event, and they said that even that is too much, so this right is not to be even "infringed" upon. Eric Nice post, Eric. Here's a link to the constitution.org site that talks a bit further on the subject of militias. http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

Dtesmoac -> RE: The US and guns (10/13/2006 5:50:00 PM)
NG. Whilst most of the posts from the US are pro-guns there are actually quite a lot of people over here that do not support the current system. The recent spate of killings in schools adds fuel to the fire with legal weapons being so readily obtainable. On one radio station a presenter had a 4 minute 23 second rant about how many different ways they should kill the perpertrator and 24 seconds on why it had occured. The whole hunting issue is very interesting with almost a constant change of what can be shot with what weapon, first day of the deer hunting season in parts of Wisconsin seems to be a bigger family festival than Christmas. But then if they don't cull them they cause massive amounts of car accidents. As with many things it is to easy for us non Yanks to catagorise the 300 million of them altogether to easily. For the more rural / wilderness areas the hunting weapons is a simple tool of the lifestyle. In cities etc it is a willy extension like a BMW is in the UK. And in other areas people genuinely feel threatened if they are not armed. The real problem is that with the Genie is so far out of the bottle with every sane and insane person having access to a veritable arsenal of weaponry it is a case of MAD - mutual asured destruction. Any terrorist wishing to get started in the US has ready access to everything they need at cut throat cost, while in the UK they would have to try a little harder and get some smuggling going on. The UK should focus more on ensuring that anyone caught carrying an illegal firearm automaticlly receives a 5 year prison sentance and continues to defend the principle that fire arms should not routinely be required by criminals, police or the general public in order to feel secure, and learn from the US system by not allowing it to reach the stage of having to carry consealed weapons in order to feel safe when out shopping.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875