RE: The US and guns

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The US and guns

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The US and guns

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 6:13:45 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

Like I said. paranoia.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

Profile

Post #: 101

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 6:15:11 AM

Pulpsmack

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 102

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 6:45:58 AM

mistoferin

Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 103

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 7:45:15 AM

TahoeSadist

Posts: 176
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

As long as one of us enjoys it, it's not a total waste

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

Profile

Post #: 104

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 8:15:21 AM

EnglishDomNW

Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 105

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 9:58:14 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to mistoferin)

Profile

Post #: 106

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 10:02:19 AM

ToGiveDivine

Posts: 650
Status: offline

Why don't we all just shoot our mouths off - it usually isn't fatal ROFL

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 107

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 11:27:22 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to dombill32)

Profile

Post #: 108

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 11:29:53 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 109

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 11:35:14 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 110

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 11:42:06 AM

toservez

Posts: 1733
Joined: 9/7/2006
From: All over now in Minnesota
Status: offline

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. :)

(in reply to mistoferin)

Profile

Post #: 111

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 11:43:25 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

LOLOLOL!

Very insightful.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to toservez)

Profile

Post #: 112

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 11:49:26 AM

mistoferin

Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline

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!!!

_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to toservez)

Profile

Post #: 113

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 12:04:36 PM

caitlyn

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

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.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 114

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 12:05:19 PM

LaTigresse

Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline

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!

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to mistoferin)

Profile

Post #: 115

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 1:18:57 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to LaTigresse)

Profile

Post #: 116

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 2:54:59 PM

sissifytoserve

Posts: 1016
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

A great mind must be androgynous
Samuel Coleridge

The uniting of the feminine and the masculine is the highest form of human development Carl Jung

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 117

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 3:15:06 PM

Kaledorus

Posts: 95
Joined: 9/4/2006
Status: offline

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

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 118

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 4:37:37 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to TahoeSadist)

Profile

Post #: 119

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:50:00 PM

Dtesmoac

Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Level)

Profile

Post #: 120