Me on Weapons Bans. . .again

[celsdogg]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55288

great little article.

Originally Posted by DIGG

This is a tale of two cities. Kennesaw, GA, requires every head of household to own a firearm and watches its crime rate plunge. Morton Grove, IL, bans all firearms (except for police officers) and watches its crime rate skyrocket.

gun buns = more crime = dont work.

[Hoppy]

i do agree. not only on the fact that they are ineffective but they are unconstitutional. the founding fathers just finished a bloody war against an opressive government using peasant soldiers and private arms. during this time, military and civilian arms were practicaly the same. the point of the 2nd amendment to to arm the people. so that when

... a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

the people can mount an effective revolt. as military quality hardware advances, civilians should be able to have that technology. im talking small arms. rifles, machine guns.
the government is supposed to FEAR YOU as a civilian.

kenedy was wrong. its not what WE can do for the government. it IS what the governmant can do for us. is what we should ask. and right now, the government cant do a damn thing for us. weve seen this in katrina, rodney king riots, countless government corruption cases.

for all those that say the 2nd amendtment was meant for the national guard...
no. a constitutional right listed for "the people" written in i believe 1789 was not intended for an orginization that didnt exist untill 1903.
alos. the national guard is a entity of the government. it is part of the system that one would be overthrowing, and as such cannot be trusted to support freedom, when they work for the opressor.

for those of you who say a well regulated militia means an official, government agency. read above. also consider that in period english. "well regulated" meant well trained, and well behaved. and the meaning of the word militia has meant, and still does mean. a body of citizens of fit body armed to protect thier ideals.

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.

read it out alound. put in all the apropriate pauses. i think youl get it then.

for all those that say the 2nd A only applies to flitlock rifles.
does the 1st amendment on freedom of speech only apply to "ye olde kings english"
Does freedom of the press only apply to moveable block type and quil and scroll?
Does freedom of religion extend to all the BS religions out there now? scientology, wicka etc etc.

in conclusion. laws for the people are supposed to be treated as a matter of fact. DID he kill some one, DID he rob that bank.
rules for the government should be does the possibility exist.
"can the patriot act be used incorrectly"
"is there a possibility this law will violate constitutional rights."
if the answer is yes. then the government should not be allowed to do it.

[xsperf]

haha thats great, although i dont necessarily agree with forcing every head of the household to use one, i know there are definately exceptions but some people just shouldnt hold guns, by thing would be to encourage, like give them free training and maybe a nice tax cut if they buy one(kind of like buying a hybrid car, but this time a little more realistic)

[Hoppy]

not to mention that "assault bans" "high capacirty bans" etc are all emotional responses, written and supported by politicians who dont know a damn thing about what they are talking about. litteraly. Mcarthy, the big mouth, openly admited she didnt know what part of her own bill meant. she didnt even know what one of the "banned" features was!

thats like talking shit, saying BMW's are dangerous because the pistons blow out and then saying... oh, i dont even know what a piston does. but im sure its bad

oh, good video BTW http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/47/45/

[cainchapman]

Mate, you guys up there are nuts. More guns can only mean there is a higher probability of a shooting.

I am a shooter, and happily recognise that guns don't kill people. Far more are killed by cars and we don't ban driving.

But hell, the mean average per annum down here of shooting fatalities (over nine years) is 79 deaths. 62 of which were suicide, 9 as a result of criminal intervention, 4 by accident, 1 by legal intervention. 3 could not be deemed to be intentional or not.

Our police do not overtly carry weapons, nor the general population.

[RSF5]

That sounds fine to me, but there are just so many people out there that, and I'm sure Hoppy, celsdogg would agree with me on this, that I would really prefer not have access to guns. Sure it is their right, but we need a dumbass clause attached to that part of the constitution. (ex. The man that left 2 loaded firearms in his bedside table unlocked in a house where a four year old and 2 year old were not watched for long enough that they managed to get to his room, pull out the guns, and proceeded to play cops and robbers until the 2 year old was killed. People like that should never own guns.)

But unfortunately it would be impossible to place a dumbass clause on the constitution, so I'm just going to have to go with everyone having the right, if they want to, to own a weapon.

Guns don't rob banks, guns don't rob stores; people do these things, typically people who either have nothing to lose or are to stupid to realize the consequences of their actions. And if your in the kind of a setting that has high crime you should carry a gun to defend yourself. If this country wants lower crime rates, keep abortions legal.

That is the honest to god truth. Lets think for a second about who would be unable to have abortions if they were illegal and what effects that would have on them.

Middle class family, in the possibility that their daughter gets pregnant, they could get her an abortion yeah, but if abortions became illegal and she has the baby, the baby will be educated and usually raised well.

Now lets think about the lady on welfare, about to pop out her 5th kid, because why on earth would she stop having sex just because her man doesn't want to use birth control and the clinic closed? What kind of setting will THOSE children be raised under? Which one do you think is going to grow up and turn to dealing drugs, or robbing people?

We do not need gun control! People will commit crimes with out guns no problem! We need an effective method for stopping criminals from developing in our society!

edit: Great video Hoppy!

[Hoppy]

oh, i agree, there are people out there that i dont WANT to have guns. but theres a point at which what i WANT and what needs to be done differ. and this is one of those.

since we cant weed out the morons. and let the normal people have guns. then EVERYONE should be able to have a gun. i refuse to punish one person because some one else is a moron/ scumbag



cainchapman - if we ban cars, vechicular homocide will decrease as well. but dont be fooled. just because people arnt using a gun, doesnt mean they arnt still killing.

also. no offense. no nation, especialy not NZ, Australia, Canda or any of our other colonial brothers has the same kind of bond to guns as America. while all the nations were wild frontieers in thier days. america fought, bled, and died for thier freedom from GB. the rest of you all just got it when england saw fit. as a shooter from a draconian nation, and myself a shootin in a restrictive state. we are brothers. but you need to experience real americans. not the hippys, not the liberals, not even the NRA. just the people who understand what the constitution means, and why america needs a serious overhaul

[RSF5]

People should have guns in order for them to retain their power over the government if worse comes to worse.

[TerryY]

Originally Posted by RSF5

People should have guns in order for them to retain their power over the government if worse comes to worse.

That was the original theory of the Republic that was formed in 1776.

Since then it has drifted off into Democracy and the government didn't like having to be that responsible for its actions.

King George was an amateur at taxation without representation compared to our current form of government starting in the 1930s.

It is still better than any other place I have been and I wouldn't call any other place home, but has lost a lot of its ideals in just my lifetime.

[RSF5]

Originally Posted by TerryY

That was the original theory of the Republic that was formed in 1776.

Since then it has drifted off into Democracy and the government didn't like having to be that responsible for its actions.

King George was an amateur at taxation without representation compared to our current form of government starting in the 1930s.

It is still better than any other place I have been and I wouldn't call any other place home, but has lost a lot of its ideals in just my lifetime.

I am in full belief that we are still capable of restoring those ideals.

[TerryY]

I will probably break down and get my concealed permit here one of these days.

Arizona was an Open Carry state so if you were not going to one of the places that made everybody cranky like schools and banks or especially government offices you just strapped the cannon on and went. It wasn't all that important there to carry concealed because of that.

Here in Oregon Open Carry is frowned upon in the cities for some reason.

I do have the perfect little "Pocket" gun for concealed though. H&K P9s.

Small enough to fit in the back pocket of a pair of jeans. Weighs around 2 pounds loaded. Accurate enough to hit a people sized target at about 70 yards. Double action.

And its best point is 7 in the magazine and one up the pipe of .45 ACP

[cainchapman]

I'm not anti-guns at all. And do own plenty of firearms myself.

However, I only ever carry one when I intend to kill something.

Not on the off chance that I might want to kill something.

This is where I feel the differentiation should be made.

I can think of no valid reason for me to need one for personal protection. If I was in that situation (and I have been), then I hire a suitably trained armed bodyguard.

[TerryY]

I suppose that I spent too many years in the military carrying my own firearm to trust anyone to essentially carry one for me. Especially some one that I have to rent.

I don't feel concerned for my safety enough to carry 99.99% of the time. But it would be reassuring to be able to legally carry that .01% if I feel the need.

[Hoppy]

Not on the off chance that I might want to kill something.

This is where I feel the differentiation should be made.

I can think of no valid reason for me to need one for personal protection. If I was in that situation (and I have been), then I hire a suitably trained armed bodyguard.

do you think those kids at VT expected to be gunned down? do you think they should have hired body gaurds to protect them? the police obviously failed, and the people were left defensless.

you dont carry because you WANT or EXPECT to kill some thing. you carry incase something wants to kill you.

this is really a culture differance. no offense you come from a much more government protection dependant culture. large parts of america dont care for big government as you do.

[RSF5]

^^^ Yeah, you never know when someone will just go absolutely out of their mind. Always be prepared.