324 replies to this topic

[preacherman76]

Corp, on 11 January 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

So have people actually looked through the thread and looked at the source material to see that no one is seriously moving to take away the Second Amendment? It's rather odd to see people fighting against something that's not happening.

The problem I have personaly is that some of the folks involved in pushing this legislation, like fienstein(sp?) has in the past expressed the will for a total ban. Then you look at other countries who banned guns, and it started similar to what we are seeing right now. Its better to stand up right now, and let them know we are not having it.

[preacherman76]

Corp, on 12 January 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

The 2nd Amendment says you can have guns. No where does it say what type of guns. So unless a law comes up to ban 100% of all firearms then gun control laws do not attack the 2nd Amendment. And if having an adult conversation makes them angry then gun advocates need to grow a thicker skin.

it says that gun ownership is not a subject the federal government is allowed to concern themselfs with.

[AsteroidX]

Your misinformed Corp. You need to read the conversations and quotes of the signers of the Declaration and others at the time to fully understand the 2nd Amendment. Before you do that you MUST read the Declaration of Independence. Without full knowledge of the Supreme Court Rulings on this issue you are only sounding like the village idiot.

[ali smack]

don't understand this paranoia of guns been taken away in america?
When has Obama ever said this?
and correct me if i'm wrong because i'm not an american but I didn't think Obama
could outlaw guns even if he wanted to?

[odiesbsc]

ali smack, on 20 January 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

don't understand this paranoia of guns been taken away in america?
When has Obama ever said this?
and correct me if i'm wrong because i'm not an american but I didn't think Obama
could outlaw guns even if he wanted to?

You're sound asleep when  you hear  a thump outside your  bedroom door.   Half-awake, and nearly  paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled  whispers.  At least two people have  broken into your house and are moving your  way.  With your heart pumping,  you reach down beside your bed and pick up your  shotgun.


You rack a shell into  the chamber, then inch toward the door and open  it. In the darkness, you  make out two  shadows.
One holds something that  looks like a  crowbar. When the intruder  brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the  shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both  thugs to the  floor. One writhes and screams  while the second man crawls to the front  door and lurches  outside.
As you pick up the  telephone to call police, you know you're in  trouble.
In your country, most guns  were outlawed years before, and the few that are  privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make  them useless..
Yours was never  registered.  Police arrive and inform  you that the second burglar has  died.  They arrest you for First Degree  Murder and  Illegal Possession of a  Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney,  he tells you  not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case  down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I  get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve  years," he  replies, as if that's  nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be  out in seven."
The  next day, the shooting is the  lead story in the local  newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an  eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are  represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives  can't find an unkind word to say about  them..
Buried deep down in the article,  authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been  arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it  all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't  Deserve to Die."
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into  Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As  the days wear on, the story takes  wings. The national media picks it  up, then the international  media.
The  surviving burglar has become a folk  hero.
Your attorney says the thief is  preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been  burglarized several times in the past and that you've  been critical of local police for their  lack of  effort in apprehending the  suspects.
After the last break-in, you  told your neighbor that you would be prepared next  time.
The  District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for  the burglars.
A  few months later, you go to  trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as  your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at the  injustice of it all works against  you..
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.  The judge sentences you to life in prison.


This case really  happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In  April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire   ?
It started with the Pistols Act of  1903.
This seemingly reasonable law  forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and  established that handgun sales were to be made only to  those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920  expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all  firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and  1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private  citizens and mandated the registration of all  shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun  confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass  shooting in 1987. Michael  Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle,  walked down the streets shooting everyone he  saw.

When the  smoke cleared, 17 people were  dead.

The British  public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun  control", demanded even tougher restrictions.  (The  seizure of all privately owned handguns was the  objective even though Ryan used a  rifle.)

Nine years  later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a  semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a  teacher at a public school.

For many  years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as  mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the  press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding  gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the  media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a  total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the  years in which the British government incrementally took  away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the  right to armed self-defense came to be seen as  vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun  licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that  self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a  gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or  rapists were charged while the real criminals were  released.

Indeed,  after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted  as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into  their own hands."

All of  Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in  beatings by young thugs  who had no fear of the  consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of  antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by  burglars.

When the  Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police  later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000  handguns from private  citizens.

How did the authorities know who  had handguns?  The guns had been registered and  licensed.  Kind of like cars. Sound  familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA   ; THIS IS  WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR  CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a  majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless  minority keen to set brush fires in people's  minds.."
--Samuel  Adams  

You had better wake up, because  Obama is  doing this  very same thing, over here,
if he can get it  done.

And there  are stupid people
in congress and on the street
that will go right along with  him.

Edited by odiesbsc, 20 January 2013 - 08:23 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

One step at a time.....

[Corp]

AsteroidX, on 13 January 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Your misinformed Corp. You need to read the conversations and quotes of the signers of the Declaration and others at the time to fully understand the 2nd Amendment. Before you do that you MUST read the Declaration of Independence. Without full knowledge of the Supreme Court Rulings on this issue you are only sounding like the village idiot.

Please, all this is nothing more a few guns owners crying that someone going to take away some of their toys. They b**** and whine about protecting freedom when the rest of the Western world is proof that gun laws do not equal dictatorship. If they really, truly believed that they needed to be on equal footing with the government then they should be demanding the right to artillery, tanks, bombers, carriers, and nukes. Because those are illegal to private ownership and yet no one is complaining about dictatorships in regards to them.

The 2nd Amendment was largely meant for two things. First so that the US won't need a standing army and they could just use the militia in wars. Well reality showed that this wasn't a very good idea. The second reason was to keep the government honest. Now at the time the choice of weapons was rather limited. If you had a musket chances are the one that the government had wasn't that much better. Not sure where they stood with cannons. However the point was that as long as citizens had the numbers and the training they could stand against a government army and have a good chance at winning. However we're not longer in the eighteenth century anymore. Technology has expanded those options. The hardware that the government has far surpasses what a citizen has access to. Having a bunch of AR-15s aren't going to do a damn thing if the government woke up tomorrow and decided to be completely evil. The ability to resist will remain the same. Likewise the Founding Fathers weren't dealing with the mass murders leaders are trying to limit today.

So even if every single one of the new gun control laws go through your ability to overthrow a tyranical government will be equal to your abilities before the laws. You will still have access to handguns, shotguns, rifles, and belt-feed machine guns. Having an AR-15 or similar gun isn't going to make an evil government roll over. Now should gun laws of carefully looked at and talked about? Of course they should. Some ideas of gun laws that come up are down right stupid. But freaking out any time the very meantion of gun control is brought up, like with the link in the OP of this thread, just means people look like those crazies in the woods who sprend all their lives waiting for the government to come and get them. Maybe they'd feel better if they had an Arbam MBT.

[Babe Ruth]

That's a false argument Corp.  Nobody demands to have any of those things you mention, in real life.  So why are you worried about it, if nobody does it?

Actually some people do have old military equipment, but it has no weapons, but that's beside the point.

Your entire argument suggests that you have a miracle formula for the law, and how it might prevent some hypothetical crime of the future, and that is nonsense.  The law is NOT omnipotent.  Usually there are more unintended consequences than harmonious effects of the law's intended purpose.

The simple truth is that the gun control laws have failed miserably to stop gun violence.  How can you be intellectually honest by suggesting that one more law, or group of laws, are going to stop gun violence?

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 21 January 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

How can you be intellectually honest by suggesting that one more law, or group of laws, are going to stop gun violence?

Holding a belief different than yours is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty, something you would know if you had any idea of the concept.






Cz

[Babe Ruth]

Well I luv u 2 CZ, but what's that got to do with it?

Can you address the argument, thanks?

[Czero 101]

You argue that it is intellectually dishonest for him to believe that new laws will "stop gun violence".

I countered with the fact that that is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty, and the fact that you don't know what intellectual honesty is, a fact proven by your history here.

How is that not addressing your argument?

Were you expecting me to also point out that your argument is yet another strawman you've built since Corp is not arguing that new laws will "stop gun violence"...?

I suppose I should give you some sort of credit, though... you've developed the ability to completely miss the point of a discussion to a high art form.







Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 21 January 2013 - 09:46 PM.

[AsteroidX]

if beliefs differ that much that people want to kill each other over it then perhaps it is time to secede. May The South Rise Again !!.

[Babe Ruth]

Cz

You're operating on the premise that YOU recognize intellectual dishonesty (and its opposite).  That has not been proven.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're one of those people who deny that molten steel existed at WTC.  You call that intellectually honest?  Puh-leeze.

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 21 January 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

Cz

You're operating on the premise that YOU recognize intellectual dishonesty (and its opposite).  That has not been proven.

Please show me where I have been intellectually dishonest.

Actually, since you have proven time and again that you are completely and willfully unfamiliar with the concept of Intellectual Honesty, please first define Intellectual Honesty for us and then show me where I have displayed its opposite.

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're one of those people who deny that molten steel existed at WTC.  You call that intellectually honest?

Please provide specific quote of where I have have denied molten steel or molten metal (since it is generally very difficult to tell just from a picture which metal it is) at WTC.

Since I know you can't and wouldn't even if you could provide that quote... consider yourself corrected.

Quote

Puh-leeze.

Indeed...






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 21 January 2013 - 10:50 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Cz

I said up front "correct me if I'm wrong".  I do not memorize other posters' posts.  Most posters who believe the OCT also deny the existence of molten steel at WTC.  Perhaps you are an exception?

I'm happy to stand corrected if I failed to remember your precise position on that question.  I don't want to hijack this thread, for the subject of gun control as addressed to Corp is far more interesting to me, but if you wish, please expand upon your understanding of molten metal in the bowels at WTC.  Any other 911 thread would be fine too.