RE: Gun Control And Tragedy

RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (Full Version)

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

Message

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 11:13:39 PM)
If people were to make jokes about people who died of negligent discharges, would you be laughing? Would you appreciate it if someone retorted, "have a sense of humor" when that is a sore spot with you? Some people take abortion, religion, DUIs what have you seriously for their own reasons. Mine happens to be the constitutional freedoms that family members fought to protect. It really aggrevates me when I think of all the people who died for those freedoms so that a certain people in a generation can sit here and treat it like a joke. I don't think the state of affairs with this country is very humorous, so you'll have to excuse my wooden demeanor as you make jokes about this.

BrutalDemon -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 11:28:41 PM)
Cool... your family fought to uphold the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution... which, I believe, include The First Ammendment? The Right To Freedom of Expression?

juliaoceania -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 11:40:49 PM)
My family on my father's side has been here since 1805, and I have members of my family that have fought in every war except the Gulf War, and I almost ended up being a vet in that war myself.. you really need to chill and learn to enjoy your life because you only have ONE of those... If you do not like my sense of humor, feel free to block me or attack me, because I am certainly not changing myself for you

BrutalDemon -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 11:50:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or If you shoot people who shoot people there will be less people shooting people. I mean does this sink in here ? Not quite... what you WOULD end up with is one guy left holding a smoking gun. You see? That's Logic, right there. You take a set of circumstances, and you follow a simple rule, and you come out with a predictable outcome... QED. "Arms" include "guns"... but banning guns, does not interfere in any way your Second Ammendment right to "bear arms"... you're just going to have to carry around a broadsword or a halberd if you want to "bear arms". Okay, 30lbs of sharp iron might not be a sexy, potent or convenient as an Uzi... but if all you're worried about is being able to exercise your Second Ammendment rights, and not some fallacy propogated by the NRA... then get down to your local Ren Fair and go talk to a weaponsmith. I'm sure he could sell you a rapier and main gauche combination for a very reasonable price. Guns are designed to kill... end of arguement. Here's a little quote from a document you might recognise, even though it's older than The Constitution. I've emphasised the good bit. quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable Rights, that among these are Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So... if you want to take someone else's life, under any circumstances, you're UnAmerican. The Declaration of Independance says so, and are you going to argue with John Hancock?

popeye1250 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 1:06:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Ah,... the National Guard is not "The Militia." And where in the Constitution does it say that "the government" has the right to keep and bare arms? In the Preamble... quote: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, *provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ... also here... Under Article I. Powers of The Congress quote:* To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; ... and here... quote: Article II... Powers of the President. The President shall be *commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States*, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States That's also what identifies the National Guard as "the militia of the several states". The National Guard are, theoretically, all under the direct command of the State Governors, or their appointed Lieutenant Generals. BrutalDemon, in the Preamble? I read it twice, I didn't see "the govt" in there. And it only takes 3 people to form a Militia. The National Guard is "the state" not "The People." Demon, from reading your posts it seems that you like to "cherry pick" the Constitution. How's about we get rid of the First Amendment as well? Or maybe the Tenth too, those pesky states shouldn't have any "rights", correct? Once you open that door ALL rights are in jeopardy!

Vendaval -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 3:01:05 AM)
General reply to the subject - I want to address the specific issue about having firearms on university campus. So far, no one has addressed the problem of what would happen with the combination of drugs + alcohol + raging hormones + firearms at college keggers and frat parties. Consider the probable outcomes given that combination of factors.

Sinimint -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 4:51:33 AM)
After reading all the posts, I'm just glad I live in Australia. I've never seen a gun (except on TV lol), dont know anyone who has one, dont ever want to see one, and the thought of one scares the hell outta me. I'm glad my lil one is growing up in a city where it is safe and that I feel safe walking around in at night, and even one murder is huge news around the country for months.

farglebargle -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 4:54:18 AM)
Well, since students DIE already from getting too drunk, falling asleep and choking on their own vomit, what's your point? That in a dangerous world, you should go unprotected because of what MIGHT happen if you ARE protected? I'd like my kids to worry more about what would happen if they WEREN'T protected. Booze + Raging Hormones == RAPE. Hangun + Girl == SAFE. If having a gun is such a bad idea, WHY does every single cop carry at least one?

Satyr6406 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 5:10:29 AM)
It seems to me that there are many people involved in this discussion who want to "beat up" on gun owners and, by extension, the NRA. They seem to object to the personalities moreso than the principles. Anyway, I am reminded of an e-mail that I got MANY years ago (probably about 10) that stated that one of the ways to know if someone was a modern "liberal" (I HATE what that word has become bastardized into) Democrat they had to: "... hate the NRA because they only defend certain parts of the Constitution and love the ACLU, who only defends certain parts of the Constitution." Pulpsmack, I've been reading this thread for a number of days, now. Anytime you find yourself in a position where you NEED to enumerate, count me as "friend". Also, your use of the word "sheeple" (one of my favorites) begs the question: Have you ever listened to/read M. William Cooper? The phrase "sheeple" was one of his favorites. He used to do a weekly show on WWCR 570 Shortband. Peace and comfort, Michael

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 6:00:49 AM)
quote: Brutal demon Arms" include "guns"... but banning guns, does not interfere in any way your Second Ammendment right to "bear arms"... you're just going to have to carry around a broadsword or a halberd if you want to "bear arms". Look up the word, "infringed" then re-read the Constitution. Banning guns interferes in EVERY WAY with our Second Amendment rights. What on earth are you thinking? then 25 years later when we have the "Kill Bill" campus killer there will be the same shit over swords, and some insightful character will give us some pearl like "arms include swords and knives but banning them doesn't interfere in any way... carry pepper spray and rubber bands". quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval General reply to the subject - I want to address the specific issue about having firearms on university campus. So far, no one has addressed the problem of what would happen with the combination of drugs + alcohol + raging hormones + firearms at college keggers and frat parties. Consider the probable outcomes given that combination of factors. It's already been considered. There is no state in the union that issues carry permits without an intoxication provision, which is similar to the motor vehicle standards. Moreover, carry in bar rooms is prohibited in most states including mine. Alcohol and dangerous machinery do not mix, whether guns or cars. But again... the age of carry is 21 or older so the significant majority of students would not be concerned anyway.

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 7:42:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack Who said anything about handguns? Semiautomatic assault rifles AND automatic rifles should also come into play as well. For those who freak out over "everyday people" having machineguns, bear in mind that they were perfectly legal up until 1986 and we didn't have a single Columbine then. The banning of machine guns is unconstititional as was the "temporarily defunct" 1994 assault weapons ban. So many lies, so little time. James Huberty killed 21 and wounded 19 more on July 18, `1984 nearly 2 years before the FOPA automatic weapons provision went into effect on May 19, 1986. Charles Whitman killed 15 and wounded 31 on July 30 - August 1 1966. This was until Monday the deadliest campus shooting in US history. Also let us not forget the Bath Township bombs which killed 45, mostly students and teachers, in 1927. Also as much as you may wish it wasn't true FOPA and the Brady law did survive all court challenges on the issue of automatic and semi automatic weapon restrictions which makes them constitutional.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 8:13:52 AM)
What I meant was that there have been no campus machinegun slayings or wholesale machinegun rampages on the public while they were legally sold. I merely coloquialized that with a "Columbine" (although those were semi-automatic weapons). Moreover, what is ruled Constitutional is not necessarily what is constitutional. It is the system we have and the one we must abide by (until such a time is necessary to excercise the Second Amendment for its intended purpose). This is why we have the appellate system... it is inherently recognized that courts commit errors. Even the Supreme Court has reversed its rulings. Case in point: the Brady law passed constitutional muster, then was found unconstitutional as it violated the 10th Amendment if I recall correctly.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 8:18:30 AM)
Putting any new law in place would assume that people don't and won't find a way to break laws. Guns are a nice distraction point against the one issue that the best "good intent" social program never addresses - human nature. How many laws did Cho Seung Hui break while killing 32 people? The largest mass murder on US soil was facilitated using box cutters.

Jack45 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 8:50:07 AM)
Very good points made. To me the most obvious reason these mass killers can so easily do their evil is that their victims are disarmed either by government statute or by institutional regulations as was the case at Va Tech where the university has been vigorously enforcing its NO GUNS ALLOWED, including licensed concealed carry permit holders, both employees and students. Va Tech lobbied the legislature of Virginia to exempt Va Tech and other schools from having to allow licensed law-abiding firearms permit holders from being on campus, even to visit. So they will call for gun bans and other laws while the victim disarmament continues. The New Zealand, Tasmanian mass killer who slayed 35 people took 3 minutes or more between shots, the people were disarmed, could not be carrying a self-defense firearm and were helpless sitting ducks. In England criminals, according to a January 2000 London Times report, were obtaining Beretta submachine guns and other genuinely fully automatic firearms on the black market at incredibly reasonable prices I might add. England is an island nation and cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, they couldn't even keep firearms from being smuggled into the then existing most secure prison in the world Maze (HM Prison). All these laws that Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy push are only targeting the law-abiding person. When German television said Charlton Heston was the one responsible for Va Tech it shows you a mentality. Facts are facts and when a bully, which is what these killers are, comes at you then cowering and crying and hiding under a desk won't do it. In former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg's latest book he shows the BIAS of American media, with the case of the Nigerian immigrant student who started to shoot up APPALACHIAN LAW SCHOOL in WEST VIRGINIA, fortunately that school did NOT bar its students from being armed and so 4 pistol toting students stopped the Nigerian before he could do as much evil as he planned. Goldberg found that the firearms used by the students to stop the shooter was deliberately left out of news reports, now that's interesting.

BrutalDemon -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 9:16:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 BrutalDemon, in the Preamble? I read it twice, I didn't see "the govt" in there. And it only takes 3 people to form a Militia. The National Guard is "the state" not "The People." Demon, from reading your posts it seems that you like to "cherry pick" the Constitution. How's about we get rid of the First Amendment as well? Or maybe the Tenth too, those pesky states shouldn't have any "rights", correct? Once you open that door ALL rights are in jeopardy! The Government... aka, The Judiciary, The Legislature and The Executive... how ELSE do you define the word? Has the Right, indeed a DUTY, to raise, equip, and regulate a standing military force for the defence of the common good. The Preamble says WHY, the Powers of Congress says HOW, and the Powers of The President says WHO is in charge of that standing army raised. A militia... is defined as "civilians trained as soldiers, but not part of the regular army". How else would YOU define the National Guard? Regular guys, with regular jobs, who are expected to take up arms in a crisis... and NOT UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL. It doesn't get any simpler than that. US law is based entirely on the concept of "precedent"... if something has happened before, and a judge has declared one way or another on its legality, then that becomes the example by which all further examples of that event are subsequently judged. I gave you an example of Precedent as it applies to The Constitution, in the shape of the 18th and 21st Ammendments... Prohibition and the repeal... this was to highlight that not only is The Constitution subject to additions, but those additions can later be removed at ANY time Congress... that's both the Senate and the House... agree to do so by a two thirds majority. Cherry picking??? How is it Cherry Picking to expand upon, and highlight the real meanings of, the misquoted mantra of "Right to Bear Arms"? Only the the ignorant, or the maliciously disengenuous, fall back on the tired old arguement that it's their Constitutional Right to own or carry guns. Your ACTUAL "Right" is to SERVE as part of a Citizens Militia... and that can be taken away from you at ANY time, if you persist in abusing that right, like any disobediant child. "There are none as blind as those that refuse to see" feels really apt at this point.

farglebargle -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 9:23:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 BrutalDemon, in the Preamble? I read it twice, I didn't see "the govt" in there. And it only takes 3 people to form a Militia. The National Guard is "the state" not "The People." Demon, from reading your posts it seems that you like to "cherry pick" the Constitution. How's about we get rid of the First Amendment as well? Or maybe the Tenth too, those pesky states shouldn't have any "rights", correct? Once you open that door ALL rights are in jeopardy! The Government... aka, The Judiciary, The Legislature and The Executive... how ELSE do you define the word? Has the Right, indeed a DUTY, to raise, equip, and regulate a standing military force for the defence of the common good. The Preamble says WHY, the Powers of Congress says HOW, and the Powers of The President says WHO is in charge of that standing army raised. The prohibition against appropriations for the military being more than 2 years precludes the existence of a "Standing Army". Try again. Here's a hint: If it's not EXPLICITLY delegated, it's not their job, nor their place to waste money. The "Hamiltonians" will disagree, but they have their own agenda for their "Liberal" interpretation.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 9:50:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon A militia... is defined as "civilians trained as soldiers, but not part of the regular army". How else would YOU define the National Guard? Regular guys, with regular jobs, who are expected to take up arms in a crisis... and NOT UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Only the the ignorant, or the maliciously disengenuous, fall back on the tired old arguement that it's their Constitutional Right to own or carry guns. Your ACTUAL "Right" is to SERVE as part of a Citizens Militia... and that can be taken away from you at ANY time, if you persist in abusing that right, like any disobediant child. "There are none as blind as those that refuse to see" feels really apt at this point. ABSOLUTE NONESENSE. If that were the case, there would be no need for the Second Amendment, seeing how this power is granted in the Articles. OBVIOUSLY, the Second Amendment MUST pertain to something else. The real tired argument is the Second Amendment amounts to the raising of the National Guard. Ultimately, the Constitution could not have been ratified until the Bill of Rights was added. What was the purpose of the Second Amendment (comma & well-regulated nonsense aside)? Was it about a protection measure against enemies foreign and domestic? NO! Kings had standing armies and sheriffs to keep the peace long before this. The chief purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide a check against tyranny, by giving The People a means to rebel should the freedom experiment deviate from its intended course. HOW WOULD A NATIONAL GUARD FULFILL THIS PROVISION??? The National Guard is a federal armed forces branch. If an insurrection developed today in the spirit of what the founding fathers envisioned, the National Guard would be the first responders to QUELL the activity. Clearly, this makes ZERO sense whatsoever. "a well-regulated militia" doesn't mean a structured organization with headquarters and personal stationary. "Well-regulated" means "well-equipped". In other words, in order to keep a free state FREE, The People need UNFETTERED access to modern, effective equipment, not that silly swords fantasy of yours you came up with earlier. Otherwise, the tyrant shall undo Democracy while the National Guard of yours preserves the will of "the king".

MellowSir -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 10:05:38 AM)
Let's go back to swords, any idiot can pull a trigger, takes a real warrior and real skill to war in a noble and honorable way....in defense of yourself, or someone else

farglebargle -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 10:13:47 AM)
quote: The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. --Adolph Hitler Hitler's Secret Conversations, trans. Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens (New York: Signet Books, 1961), 403. Hitler was FOR GUN CONTROL. Do we really need any other reason to oppose it? http://www.jpfo.org

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 10:14:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MellowSir Let's go back to swords, any idiot can pull a trigger, takes a real warrior and real skill to war in a noble and honorable way....in defense of yourself, or someone else Nice to know your view that those who serve(d) our country, paying the price of your freedom with their blood (so sit there with your bowl of cheetos imparting these pearls before us swine) are not real warriors with real skill. Tell you what... you get the enemies, foreign and domestic to fight with "honor and skill" as well and I'll switch to a claymore. Better yet... While you have their ear convince them to abandon their guns alltogether and if you do, you can have mine as well. Any idiot can cast lofty statements from behind a keyboard. A real warrior is one who puts the lives of his fellow men before his own as he answers the call of his country.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.910156E-02