Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Karlis

The Global Gun Control Threat

326 posts in this topic

weird. I have the exact opposite reaction. In fact, I have a cousin in law enforcement. Every time I went to his house I was uneasy knowing there was a gun in the house.

lol Sorry, but I find that pretty funny since there are over 1.4 million people in Illinois with Firearm Owner ID cards. That isn't even counting the people that aren't registered and with such a high crime rate I would imagine it is quite a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your claim that "it's possible" does not make it so.

Hahahahaha!! Oh the lack of self-awareness is priceless, would you like me to purchase a mirror for you?

And yes, I was pretty certain before, and thanks for confirming that what's protected by the USC doesn't mean anything to you. That's rather the sticking point, besides your (commonly held) idea that passing some law, any law, whether it works or not law, will make you feel better. You and Diane Feinstein and many more.

The sticking point is that you are incapable of moving beyond your shallow talking points, and will just strawman people if that suits you. Why, it's almost like you were doing it to 'feel better' and given how vapid your point is, I can see why you would need to do that.

Quote me where I said, "that passing some law, any law, whether it works or not law, will make you feel better", or don't you care about accuracy and whether you are correctly representing other's statements? Quit dodging my questions, it makes your 'argument' here look stupid; true or false, if we were to ban all guns and ammunition in this country, in 50 years do you think gun deaths would be reduced? If you answer is false, please elaborate why you don't think it would make any difference at all, assuming you are capable of moving off your script. If you think it's true, which I think it is, then why don't you put to rest the idea that 'more legislation won't make any difference' and perhaps move on to a deeper point if there is one.

As far as the USC, no, I didn't say that what's protected by the USC doesn't mean anything to me; I said that the things that the Constitution protects don't mean much to me simply by virtue that it is in the Constitution. Things don't magically become good ideas just because they are in the Constitution, they are good ideas and principles by themselves; the USC is not of divine origin. Lots of people have problems with the 16th Amendment allowing the collection of income tax, does 'the USC mean nothing to them' also? Is the 'rightness' of the income tax sacred now just because it's in the USC?

Yeah, I get it. Let's do something, even if it has no effect, or even if it's wrong. Let's do something so that it will look good.

Yes, BR, when in doubt just go right back to square 1 and act as if that is not a straight repeat of what you said a few days ago that I objected to and like there's been no conversation since. Better yet, why don't you get to work demonstrating that any possible law will have no effect. The usual rules apply; your supposed expertise, ruminations about psychology, and ha, especially your interpretation of body language are not admissible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol Sorry, but I find that pretty funny since there are over 1.4 million people in Illinois with Firearm Owner ID cards. That isn't even counting the people that aren't registered and with such a high crime rate I would imagine it is quite a few.

There are 315 million Americans. That's why we need the internet pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 315 million Americans. That's why we need the internet pages.

And I was only talking about Illinois...clean your glasses, dude.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does the word 'unalienable' mean?

Here ya go. The Definition you requested. :gun:

un·al·ien·a·ble (ubreve.gifn-amacr.giflprime.gifyschwa.gif-nschwa.gif-bschwa.gifl, -amacr.gifprime.giflemacr.gif-schwa.gif-)

adj.

Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: "All of them . . . claim unalienable dignity as individuals" (Garrison Keillor).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers? Here are some powerful gun quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves.

"A free people ought to be armed."

- George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

- George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."

- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."

- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."

- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."

- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."

- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."

- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

- William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

- St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

- Alexander Hamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American ideals dont have much to do with world gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers? Here are some powerful gun quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves.

Here are some more quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves. From the US Constitution:

Article I, Section. 2 [slaves count as 3/5 persons]

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]

...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

Things change.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And mysteriously left no evidence of it....

Seriously man, there's nothing wrong with being mistaken, everyone is sometimes. You don't have to acknowledge your error but I wouldn't think you want to continue to dig in your heels on an incorrect position here either. Don't believe people here, just look it up.

What do you mean no evidence? The bill of rights its self is the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some more quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves. From the US Constitution:

Article I, Section. 2 [slaves count as 3/5 persons]

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]

...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

Things change.

And you acuse Babe of using strawmen.

Not one thing regarding what the founders believed about the second amendment has changed. Not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, I disagree with this statement right here. No, the use of drugs hasn't been eliminated, that is true... but I do firmly believe that the laws regarding drugs have prevented many more people from using the more extreme drugs. It was done through both legislation as well as education.

I do firmly believe that if there was no laws concerning drugs, many more people would be using cocaine, heroin, etc.

Simple question Stellar, and I've asked it of many.

Speaking only for yourself, if cocaine and heroin or any of the other presently illegal drugs were made legal tomorrow, would YOU begin to use them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weird. I have the exact opposite reaction. In fact, I have a cousin in law enforcement. Every time I went to his house I was uneasy knowing there was a gun in the house.

Just guessing, but maybe you and I were raised differently with respect to firearms?

My grandfather was a Chicago cop, and we kids were raised with a serious respect for firearms. We had a proper firearms education, and were shooting pistols and rifles at a young age. Then in the Army, I went through standard training and qualified with a variety of rifles and the standard .45 automatic pistol.

So I've never been afraid of inanimate objects. They are merely tools.

I am worried about the human operators of those tools when they are UNeducated in the proper use of those tools.

I am NOT worried about those tools in the hands of my fellow citizen, as long as he is reasonably sane and well trained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahaha!! Oh the lack of self-awareness is priceless, would you like me to purchase a mirror for you?

The sticking point is that you are incapable of moving beyond your shallow talking points, and will just strawman people if that suits you. Why, it's almost like you were doing it to 'feel better' and given how vapid your point is, I can see why you would need to do that.

Quote me where I said, "that passing some law, any law, whether it works or not law, will make you feel better", or don't you care about accuracy and whether you are correctly representing other's statements? Quit dodging my questions, it makes your 'argument' here look stupid; true or false, if we were to ban all guns and ammunition in this country, in 50 years do you think gun deaths would be reduced? If you answer is false, please elaborate why you don't think it would make any difference at all, assuming you are capable of moving off your script. If you think it's true, which I think it is, then why don't you put to rest the idea that 'more legislation won't make any difference' and perhaps move on to a deeper point if there is one.

As far as the USC, no, I didn't say that what's protected by the USC doesn't mean anything to me; I said that the things that the Constitution protects don't mean much to me simply by virtue that it is in the Constitution. Things don't magically become good ideas just because they are in the Constitution, they are good ideas and principles by themselves; the USC is not of divine origin. Lots of people have problems with the 16th Amendment allowing the collection of income tax, does 'the USC mean nothing to them' also? Is the 'rightness' of the income tax sacred now just because it's in the USC?

Yes, BR, when in doubt just go right back to square 1 and act as if that is not a straight repeat of what you said a few days ago that I objected to and like there's been no conversation since. Better yet, why don't you get to work demonstrating that any possible law will have no effect. The usual rules apply; your supposed expertise, ruminations about psychology, and ha, especially your interpretation of body language are not admissible.

If a gun ban were imposed in this country, my guess is that in 50 years, probably way less, the federal government would have been overthrown, as long as we're dealing in hypotheticals.

We just agree to disagree here LG. You believe that adding one more gun law to the already existing list of hundreds of gun laws is going to make some sort of meaningful difference. I do not believe that fantasy, because I've been paying attention for quite a few years now, and have noticed that when new gun laws are added to the books, federal, state or local, nothing happens except bad things.

In the recent Heller case, the court recognized that citizens have a right to defend themselves and their homes, no matter what silly nonsense the local bureaucrats put forth. This is a very corrupted Supreme Court, but it got that one right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There wont be a new gunlaw. Itleast not a legitimate one. :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question Stellar, and I've asked it of many.

Speaking only for yourself, if cocaine and heroin or any of the other presently illegal drugs were made legal tomorrow, would YOU begin to use them?

I would not. If they had been legal all my life? Perhaps.

Now, a question for you. If all drugs were legalized, do you believe that drug use would not increase?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there would be some sort of increase by some people, but it would be small because most folks are just not so inclined.

As it is right now, those people who WANT to use drugs do so. It is a dynamic and complex situation, and has been greatly affected by the very widespread TV advertising of drugs direct to consumer. Until Bill Clinton's term, such advertising was forbidden. I think it was around 1996 that Clinton repealed the ban on direct to consumer advertising of Rx drugs.

Anybody who has ever smoked pot, and that includes me, knows it is benign, and that little factoid is very much involved in why certain youngsters feel they have been lied to about drugs, and then go on to more dangerous drugs.

Under the present system we have the "forbidden fruit syndrome" at work, and that is a powerful motivator for some humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a gun ban were imposed in this country, my guess is that in 50 years, probably way less, the federal government would have been overthrown, as long as we're dealing in hypotheticals.

We just agree to disagree here LG. You believe that adding one more gun law to the already existing list of hundreds of gun laws is going to make some sort of meaningful difference.

This response is a cop-out, albeit predictable. Let's try again since you are dodging. If we (a majority of the citizens of the US, not the evil government imposing it upon us) decide that guns should be absolutely outlawed with stiff penalties, and the government is not overthrown and some other wackadoodle scenario that can be imagined that allows you to avoid the question does not occur, would you expect gun deaths to decrease?

This is why it's frustrating to talk with you BR, and why I come away with the idea that everything is so shallow with you which it may not actually be. You seem to at all costs want to make sure that you can not only never appear to be potentially wrong but not even give a little ground, and this gets in the way of being able to first off get at what your detailed position actually is and worse, actually have a nuanced semi-indepth discussion. Here's the response that is along the lines I was looking for and was expecting, I'm not saying this is your position and am not strawmanning you: "Yes LG, of course we could put in place ridiculously drastic laws that would likely eventually reduce gun deaths, but at great costs to our liberty and security that would actually make things overall worse in society, and it would instead be more effective to do 'x' instead'." I think it's a pretty banal point, if you can make it more difficult to get guns then that logically will reduce gun deaths all things being equal; go ultra-extreme and say we have summary execution of anyone caught with a gun, that 'one more law' would reduce gun deaths, no? There are all kinds of interesting topics that could be discussed here. Is it better to reduce the number of guns or have an armed populace so that people can stop nuts before they cause too much damage? Can we effectively address the underlying causes of these violent outbursts in the first place? Why are the current laws so ineffective at reducing gun deaths, is that even what they are designed to do? If we put in place more draconian gun control measures, what penalties are reasonable, when should we expect to see an impact? Instead we have to go through multiple posts where you just keep strawmanning me with a caricature of what I'm saying that is so greatly oversimplified that it is plain inaccurate; there is no progress that can be made that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean no evidence? The bill of rights its self is the evidence.

Sigh. Simply point out where in the Bill of Rights it says that the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be amended or repealed by future amendments. Simply point to anyone with any legal expertise who says that. You can't, because it is a fact that they can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you acuse Babe of using strawmen.

Not one thing regarding what the founders believed about the second amendment has changed. Not one.

I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is. I don't know how to unpack that last sentence; not one thing the founders believed has changed, of course, because they are dead. If I were to guess, I think what you are trying to say is that there have been no further laws that have significantly altered the scope of the second amendment or overturned it, which is largely true I think, but so what?

Let me flesh out my comment that you are objecting to, it was admittedly brief. Providing a list of quotes by the founding fathers concerning the 2nd amendment is fine as far as it goes, which is to clarify what the amendment actually meant to them. Fine, now that that is established, so what? Two centuries have passed, two centuries within which we have rightly disregarded and hold as contemptible their thoughts concerning slavery. So let's be clear that ideas are not inviolate or holy just because the founding fathers supported them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two centuries have passed, two centuries within which we have rightly disregarded and hold as contemptible their thoughts concerning slavery.

Which raises the point, did the founding fathers think that their slaves had the right to bear arms? If not, then the interpretation of the Bill of Rights has indeed been altered over time.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting study on guns and gun control. It's quite long but its got some actual facts about the topic. I doubt that many gun control advocates will even read it.

Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Odie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. Simply point out where in the Bill of Rights it says that the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be amended or repealed by future amendments. Simply point to anyone with any legal expertise who says that. You can't, because it is a fact that they can be.

Sigh. Simply point out where in the Bill of Rights it says that the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be amended or repealed by future amendments. Simply point to anyone with any legal expertise who says that. You can't, because it is a fact that they can be.

So, are you advocating for a repeal of the Second? It sounds that way, but considering our relationship, it's hard to tell. :-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I was only talking about Illinois...clean your glasses, dude.

There are almost 13million Illinoisians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers?

in the 18th century that would be true. Not so much today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which raises the point, did the founding fathers think that their slaves had the right to bear arms? If not, then the interpretation of the Bill of Rights has indeed been altered over time.

Good question. I'd guess they didn't as I don't think slaves were considered 'citizens' until after the Civil War, but you are of course right that the interpretation has still changed. It's confusing as in some statements they are made to sound strictly like property but in others, like in the Constitution, they are worth 3/5 a person for taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.