Here it is the libs are coming after our guns
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 4 of 22
Quote:
The government also has tanks, planes, helicopters and nukes - should citizens be allowed these too? Some guy might want to have his own tank, and aren't you infringing on his freedom if you deny him that right?
Again, where do you draw the line?
Quote:
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.
Would said citizen be a member of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State by any chance? That's where I would draw the line.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another appeal to emotion vomited forth by 1kiki. Imagine my surprise.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"And I gave an example of how we had NO limits at one time."
You mean the example where you claim kids could get guns and we had NO school shootings? None? Or only that you didn't bother to look any up? Did you consider all the other changes that have taken place that have everything to do with gangs and drugs? With increased mobility? I suspect not. Example? Hardly - merely your completely unsupported supposition that two things were related, without any solid facts or analysis to relate them together in a real historical way.
National Firearms Act of 1934. Look it up.
The first national firearms law. Instituted under and with the blessing of FDR, a progressive president.
Remember the year, 1934. I'll be coming back around to that later on.
Quote:
And your 1999 figures are not only out of date, they are seriously incomplete. Your figure for ACCIDENTAL gun deaths is about 1,100.
The 2008 figures for total firearms CONVICTION-ASSOCIATED MURDERS is ~ 11,000+. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_pri
sons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html Don't you think that this is a problem of judgment?
Then you can add in guns deaths from accidents - since I can't find statistics for that year let's call it 1,000.
What about shootings that didn't result in a convictions - anonymous drive-bys, or known gang-related for which no one will come forward? Or for which there is insufficient evidence for a conviction? Don't you think they should count?
Are there any figures for non-fatal injuries? How about non-fatal injuries that result in permanent disability?
How about property damage? DAMN! I sure killed the clothes in my closet!
Before I get on a roll and start totaling up ALL of the death, injury and damage due to firearms, I think you'd better settle on that 30,00 DEAD figure.
30,000 dead. Okay, let's use that for a yardstick. It is still ~0.000109% of the population of the US. Percentages under 1 are considered statistically insignificant. But there are many causes of death and injury that outstrip firearms.
But just wailing and gnashing of teeth isn't enough for 1kiki. No. Let's cry and moan over all the stuff. The ephemeral, replaceable THINGS that can get damaged by a gun.
You must have a conniption fit when you spill coffee on yourself. All the wasted money on ruined clothing!!!111!!!
Quote:
" We have been following a progressive agenda for nearly 80 years ..."
Please, this strains all notions of reality.
1934. FDR. Progressive president. Founder of numerous entitlement programs. Supporter of the NFA. 2011-1934=77 years. Nearly 80 years.
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act (interesting, modeled after Nazi Germany's 1938 Law on Weapons by Senator Thomas Dodd. http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm )
1972 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms created
1986 Law Enforcement Officer's Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?
I asked you these before and you avoided the questions, so, answer all the questions I ask you or I'll just brand you a libtard thread bomber troll and assume you have nothing to add to the conversation.
Based on the census bureau figures do you want to address motor vehicle accidents, falls, poisoning, death by fire, drowning, ingestions and inhalation, and medical malpractice before we get to firearms?
Do you want to go all the way to the Gulag before you say that we've gone far enough?
How would returning to no limits put as at more risk?
So, 4 answers or you are a libtard thread bomber troll. Try using the "reply with quote" function so you don't have to strain your memory.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The ownership of arms, even without using them, is self-defense against the govt's powers.
I know where that belief comes from, but I don't think it's relevant anymore. As was stated previously, the Govt. has every weapon at their disposal, so what damn good is a little Glock gonna do anyone? Go out on the street, armed with multiple 31-shot magazines, and you're gonna get blown away long before you even see your "enemy."
Because tanks need fuel. Jets need a place to land. Helicopters need ammunition. Everyone who operates them needs food, parts to maintain them and a safe place to sleep.
The first rule is to hit 'em where they ain't. Read your Nathan Bedford Forrest. Trucks, supply dumps, repair depots, rear area bases and manufacturing facilities are where you would be hitting. All of them are relatively soft targets.
Quote:
Virginia Tech massacre
Fort Hood Massacre
Tucson Massacre
All these bloodbaths were made infinitely worse by the use of high-powered automatic handguns with big clips.
I guarantee you, a 9mm is not high powered. The 5.7mm pistol the Major used at Fort Hood is also not a high powered pistol round.
If any of the shooters had been trained to do the job the results would have been infinitely worse. Look up Youtube videos of Jerry Miculek. He works with a 6-8 shot Smith and Wesson revolver. He is so fast it beggars description. With his level of training there would have been a CROWD when he was done.
Quote:
Also, FWIW, I thought Obama did a magnificent job last night at the memorial service.
I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but yes.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Would said citizen be a member of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State by any chance?
I don't know myself... but you're saying not, I take it?
You're interpreting it as the right to keep and bear small arms?
My interpretation would be different. First of all I think the FF's were thinking of the citizens defending the state from an outside threat. I don't think they had in mind citizens having to fight the government and were talking about that... But if we do take that interpretation, as some people in this thread have, I have argued that the citizens would need more than small arms against the forces the US government has at its disposal - so the FF's would be scandalised and horrified at your curtailing citizens' rights to own tanks and bazukas etc...
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
I'll give up my 30 round magazines as soon as the government gives up all of theirs.
The government also has tanks, planes, helicopters and nukes - should citizens be allowed these too? Some guy might want to have his own tank, and aren't you infringing on his freedom if you deny him that right?
Again, where do you draw the line?
It's not personal. It's just war.
There are many tanks in private hands. Several individuals have tank collections. Also, private individuals own not only piston engined fighters, bombers and attack planes, but also jet powered models as well. Some of which had types in service in the US military until the 1990's. There are lots of helicopters in private hands.
There are many events around the country where competitors come together to shoot black powder cannon. Admittedly, you need some wide open spaces for this sort of sport, but they can be very destructive. Good for us the BATFE does not consider any arm using black powder as a firearm and they are unregulated.
http://www.hatchergun.com/blkpwdrcannon.htm
Don't punish possession, punish misuse.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
I thought Obama did a magnificent job last night at the memorial service.
I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but yes.
What other shoe would that be?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't know myself... but you're saying not, I take it?
You're interpreting it as the right to keep and bear small arms?
My interpretation would be different. First of all I think the FF's were thinking of the citizens defending the state from an outside threat. I don't think they had in mind citizens having to fight the government and were talking about that... But if we do take that interpretation, as some people in this thread have, I have argued that the citizens would need more than small arms against the forces the US government has at its disposal - so the FF's would be scandalised and horrified at your curtailing citizens' rights to own tanks and bazukas etc...
It's not personal. It's just war.
It's not entirely clear whether the amendment is meant to protect personal ownership of arms and not just 'small arms' or ownership of arms as part of a well regulated militia. Either way, if the citizens were part of a well regulated militia I don't see any problem with them having tanks, bazookas, jets, etc... I'm not curtailing anyone's rights, I'm just trying to understand them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Percentages under 1 are considered statistically insignificant. But there are many causes of death and injury that outstrip firearms.
But just wailing and gnashing of teeth isn't enough for 1kiki. No. Let's cry and moan over all the stuff. The ephemeral, replaceable THINGS that can get damaged by a gun.
You lost me here.
There are a number of cases where values below 1% are in fact significant... Such as certain chemicals being toxic in the parts per million range. I think human life might also fall under that heading, and I question whether it is in fact replaceable.
I prefer the risk/choice based argument myself. But to each their own.
Quote:
All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?
That may be a factor of population growth and world-screwed-up-ness more than the laws. However, unnecessary, draconian, and bureaucratic laws do contribute to world-screwed-up-ness.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I find it very frustrating that no one but me has brought up the lack of affordable, effective and discrete, mental health care as a root cause of this.
But no, too easy to blame all the symptoms, keep taking cough syrup for tuberculosis, yanno ?
Or maybe even addressing how he got so messed up in the first damn place, that'd be a bloody start.
But no, blame a tool, blame an inanimate object, blame anything but the society that cranks out people so broken that they're capable of such deeds, cause THAT, would start pointing fingers at US - wouldn't it now ?
-Frem
Guns have a certain popularity as weapon of choice with the angry society haters. If the trend was to drive a car into large crowds then we'd be talking about how do we stop that from happening.
Loughner was kicked out of the college he was attending and told he couldn't return until he had a clean bill of mental health, whatever that means. How do you tell an unstable person they're unstable and need help? Who takes that responsibility on? What would make anyone think they would listen?
fwiw - I'll never be convinced that a society that has guns to the extent that we do is a healthy one, or doesn't have some mental health issues of its own. CTS says she feels the need for having a gun to protect her from her government - does that sound like we're in a good place?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So the answer to defending oneself against a threat is to cast away that defense as a secondary threat without ever acknowledging the primary one ?
I reject that, categorically.
And so long as those calling for "reasonable restrictions" outright ADMIT total prohibition is their goal, no - I will not surrender one goddamned inch to them, period.
Cause prohibition worked SO WELL with Booze, and SO WELL with Drugs, yeahhhhh.
If you cannot see how asinine it is, we got nothin to talk about.
Now I do have ideas on actual compromise, but until I am convinced such a compromise isn't just another thinly veiled move towards total prohibition, I refuse to offer them, despite having done so before around here.
And one final note, find damn near any massacre, genocide, or massive cultural slaughter in recent history, and note what happened just prior to it.
While I admit the source is biased, this chart does speak for itself.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
You have to understand, ever since I was but a wee little child, MY first question when someone wants me to ground arms is WHAT ARE YOUR INTENTIONS ?
And you know, I have yet to recieve any answer to that which didn't encourage me to BOLSTER my defenses, thank you kindly.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME