Interesting Look At Gun Control

12 years ago

I wrote to my main man Hock Hochheim once.

I told him "People in Boston are such jackasses... If you're in traffic, and don't immediately go when the traffic is green, people will throw stuff at you... Cuss you out... Threaten you... And act like such animals"...

I went on... "But when I visit relatives in PA, the drive is always so calm and relaxing... You could basically fall asleep at the wheel and nobody would say a thing, they would courteously go around you".

Hock replied and said... "An armed population is a polite population".

Food for thought

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Check Out My Legendary Marketing Blog By Clicking This Beautiful Text.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8818735].message }}

socialentry

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Sarevok

I wrote to my main man Hock Hochheim once.

I told him "People in Boston are such jackasses... If you're in traffic, and don't immediately go when the traffic is green, people will throw stuff at you... Cuss you out... Threaten you... And act like such animals"...

I went on... "But when I visit relatives in PA, the drive is always so calm and relaxing... You could basically fall asleep at the wheel and nobody would say a thing, they would courteously go around you".

Hock replied and said... "An armed population is a polite population".

Food for thought

Likewise underneath a fascist government.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823995].message }}

Riggs

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Sarevok

I wrote to my main man Hock Hochheim once.I went on... "But when I visit relatives in PA, the drive is always so calm and relaxing... You could basically fall asleep at the wheel and nobody would say a thing, they would courteously go around you".

Probably because your car would end up face down in a ditch or spectacularly wrapped around a tree.

Thanks

Signature

Website: https://jacobriggs.io

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828653].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Yeah - ya'd think by this day and age that they'd start taking a look at why we have criminals instead of spending all of our money on trying to take our guns.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8818737].message }}

Marvin Johnston 12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Yeah - ya'd think by this day and age that they'd start taking a look at why we have criminals instead of spending all of our money on trying to take our guns.

It takes on a whole different meaning if you look at the gun control legislation as self-defense for politicians .
- [ 5 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8818771].message }}
- HeySal 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston
  
  It takes on a whole different meaning if you look at the gun control legislation as self-defense for politicians .
  
  True. I don't see any of them disarming their body guards, do you? I have no misunderstanding why that is. I have also no misunderstanding about why disarming the public is so important to Capital Hill right now. One look at those armored tanks being given to police forces (domestic police, not military), and it's not hard to make the necessary connections about what is coming down in our country. After reading this history of the rise of fascism in about 5 other societies - it all starts to look like the same damned story in each one of them. I just hope our writers get a chance to write a really different story from the rest.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Sal
  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
  Beyond the Path
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8818875].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

And don't ANYONE think the average person goes out in public with a gun, etc... In most areas, THAT is illegal! And people don't threaten EITHER! THAT is illegal! Probably most people go through their lives NEVER personally seeing or hearing of a gun.

But getting rid of guns reduces the risk for people that have them, so the risk/reward decision made by most thieves is, in their mind, a no brainer!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8818769].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

I WAS going to talk about how Connecticut has LONG LINES today outside government building for people to register their guns. WHY? Because if they don't do it within 4 days, they will be considered FELONS! Those that you would WANT to have register their guns WON'T, because the law mandates they be then thrown in jail(It is a felony for a felon to have a gun in their possession.), and THEY have nothing to lose by failing to do so!

So it does NOTHING but hurt the honest.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8818787].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

That's an urban myth TB. First of all, we aren't #3. Secondly, if you take the total murders from those four cities away it wouldn't make that much of a difference in our ranking and certainly wouldn't put us at fourth from the bottom.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by thunderbird

[ 4 ] Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819102].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Another couple of views on gun violence in the US:

U.S. cities as bad as deadliest 3rd World countries

Another similar viewpoint:

Gun Violence in U.S. Cities Compared to the Deadliest Nations in the World - Richard Florida - The Atlantic Cities

"We can't put this off any longer," President Obama implored the nation last week as he introduced 23 executive actions designed to reduce gun violence in America. While the United States has the highest level of gun ownership per capita in the world, its rate of gun homicides, about three per 100,000 people, is far lower than that of Honduras, the country with the world's highest gun homicide rate (roughly 68 gun murders per 100,000 people). But America's homicide rate varies significantly by city and metro area, as I pointed out here at Cities a few weeks ago. The map below compares the rate of gun murders in American cities to nations around the world. Building upon Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data used in that post, Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute compiled additional data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and other sources collated by The Guardian. (While international crime data suffer from significant reporting and comparison issues, homicide data is more reliable. As the Urban Institute's John Roman points out, it is the one type of crime that is "hard to fake" and also most likely to be reported.)

The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.

If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
Atlanta's rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).
Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).
Houston's rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador's (12.7).
Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
Phoenix's rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).
Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).
Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).
New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).
Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and Austin, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.

For another interesting perspective, look at how the cities with the highest gun homicide rates voted in the last election.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819138].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Well of course homicide rates vary by city and metro area. Also, large cities are known to be more violent for various reasons. Plus, comparing US cities to entire countries is irrelevant and misleading. You can take many third world large cities and also compare it to entire countries and get the similar or worse results. In fact the US only has one city in the top 20 ( and 5 in the top 50 ) for most violent cities in the world.

Most Violent Cities In The World (GRAPHIC PHOTOS)

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

But America's homicide rate varies significantly by city and metro area...[ The map below compares the rate of gun murders in American cities to nations around the world.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820418].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

I also seriously question the idea that New Orleans is one of the cities with the toughest gun control laws in the country. From what I have read that is completely untrue and in fact there are very few gun control laws that can be passed in New Orleans because of state laws.

Why, instead, are gun rights expanding through laws like a recent Jindal-approved measure that allows people to carry guns in church. When it comes to keeping guns out of the mitts of people who will use them against their fellow human, it appears on the surface that the city's hands are tied.

Turns out, in one big way, they are.

Louisiana is one of 42 states to pass a law, RS 40, section 1796, that prohibits any political subdivision from passing an ordinance or regulation concerning the sale, purchase, or ownership of guns that's more restrictive than state law. This means that New Orleans can't pass any ordinances requiring more background checks than the federal Brady Act, which mandates checks only for federally licensed dealers. As a result, it's open-season for most dealers at the regularly scheduled and robust gun shows in New Orleans and its surrounding suburbs, which are full of private sellers happily (and legally) selling away guns to anyone who can pay.

Louisiana was one of the first states to adopt the preemption law in 1985, with the rationale that uniformity protects the interest of gun owners. It ensures, for example, that a gun owner from Mamou heading into New Orleans for the weekend, shotgun in tow, won't be blindsided by the city's potentially unfamiliar gun laws and end up with a fine.

N.O. Control | NOLA DEFENDER

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820523].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Intresting, wikipedia doesn't seem to have much info until 1970, which was the worst year, and put it at 11th. GRANTED, the top ten are NOT good countries. There are a LOT of reasons why the US would be worse in an otherwise IDENTICAL circumstance. Alas,I couldn't say the truth because people wouldn't want to hear it EVEN though I could show you how it fits Los Angeles, Louisiana, Detroit, Chicago, DC, etc... HECK, you can even see the pattern in some of the countries(There are only 2 possible exceptions, out of the like 19 named ones!) Marvin put up. Who knows, it might fit elsewhere as well.

And Baltimore is an area you have to be careful about. The main airport there IS considered a DC airport, though I think it is actually a bit out of the way. I wonder if IT fits the pattern!

Even when the pattern APPEARS to break, another pattern that is more specific emerges that seems to be even MORE precise! One person only TODAY showed how like the last 10 or so major incidents, including the boston bombers, sandy hook, treyvon and that police officer that ended up having the police force looking for him, fit.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819253].message }}

mojoogden

12 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Hand out guns and murders will go down! People will be less willig to harm someone who armed!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819323].message }}

GarrieWilson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by mojoogden

Hand out guns and murders will go down! People will be less willig to harm someone who armed!

Not really. The urban areas are well armed and killing each other.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819386].message }}

thunderbird

12 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Not really. The urban areas are well armed and killing each other.

When I look at the stats, I see that they're killing each other in all sorts of ways. I recall research showing that the greater the amount of lead poisoning in populations areas, the greater the amount of violence.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819391].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

When I look at the stats, I see that they're killing each other in all sorts of ways. I recall research showing that the greater the amount of lead poisoning in populations areas, the greater the amount of violence.

Apparently, most sources of new lead, outside of bullets, and toys from china, and passing off lead crystal for food use, etc..., have been gone since about 1978.

But yeah, culture, poor education(lead basically has the same effect), and to a far lesser extent poverty, tend to be big contributors to violence.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819409].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

The Stats still beg the relevant question. Why do we have so many freaking criminals? We have hundreds of millions of legal guns - and many who kill with guns, don't use their own legal guns. They are criminals. What is turning people this crazy? I ask this without having the stats to support what I know, but they are around --- more people are killed by knives here than by guns. We've got a criminal problem. A bad one.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819800].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

The Stats still beg the relevant question. Why do we have so many freaking criminals? We have hundreds of millions of legal guns - and many who kill with guns, don't use their own legal guns. They are criminals. What is turning people this crazy? I ask this without having the stats to support what I know, but they are around --- more people are killed by knives here than by guns. We've got a criminal problem. A bad one.

GOOD POINTS!

It is WELL known that the US has been presented to MANY as a kind of utopia. It NEVER was, and NEVER will be! UTOPIA! Pull the word apart!

A=NOT, NO, NON
TOPIA=PLACE

So it is NO PLACE!

Wikipedia says:

A utopia /juːˈtoʊpiə/ is a community or society possessing highly desirable or perfect qualities. The word was coined in Greek by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and imagined societies portrayed in fiction. It has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia.

Anyway, this created a huge influx of people that had NO IDEA really. And coupled with all sorts of US and international laws, a LOT of people got in. Some were REALLY bad people. Also, the US supports some countries that have plenty of enemies! The boston bombers CLEARLY came here to cause trouble! I mean for a guy to become a citizen on 9/11 and less than a year later bomb a marathon?

Want to see misplaced jealousy and all? Just come to the US! I actually knew a guy that got upwards of 25% more than I did in a year. He had a pension, I didn't. He got LOTS of benefits I didn't, and I don't get any he doesn't have. He had a $900K beverly hills home(I rented) he had a nice car(I was still paying off mine), etc.... HECK, his parents were even still married and both in jobs paying at least 6 figures! Yet somehow he thought I was just SO much better off. GIVE ME A BREAK! Even the GOVERNMENT is trying to capitalize on this kind of jealousy.

And some people, when they get jealous, will try to destroy what you have, or kill you and take it.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820271].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

... which of course you would extrapolate that "tough gun laws" equals high murder rate, which is utter nonsense.

I imagine the tough gun laws in those 4 states were in response to a high rate of gun violence and they would be even higher without them, or at least the same, but they would most certainly not be worse because of gun laws.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819906].message }}

Claude Whitacre

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

... which of course you would extrapolate that "tough gun laws" equals high murder rate, which is utter nonsense.

I imagine the tough gun laws in those 4 states were in response to a high rate of gun violence and they would be even higher without them, or at least the same, but they would most certainly not be worse because of gun laws.

Your reason and logic have no place here.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820260].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

... which of course you would extrapolate that "tough gun laws" equals high murder rate, which is utter nonsense.

I imagine the tough gun laws in those 4 states were in response to a high rate of gun violence and they would be even higher without them, or at least the same, but they would most certainly not be worse because of gun laws.

Never thought about that extrapolation... great idea

!

So a quick google check brings up:

Gun Control - Just Facts

and that site tends to show increases in murder rates where gun control is implemented.

Also interesting is the right to carry concealed weapons results in a decrease in the homicide rate.

I know... for some people these are inconvenient truths.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820408].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Law by survey is a truly ridiculous notion. Who cares what some statistician says? The 2nd Amendment remains. Since their is no chance of repealing it, because the people want it, lawless activists seek to circumvent the supreme law of the land via lies, statistics, propaganda, and dissembling.

I believe 30 days in a county jail for anyone proposing unconstitutional legislation should be mandatory.

Maybe I can help you out...what part of "well regulated" don't you understand?

And I agree, anyone that doesn't believe "well regulated" is part of the Second Amendment and ignores this phrase should be punished for being unconstitutional.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820535].message }}

Claude Whitacre

12 years ago

The Thinkers VS the Believers. The eternal struggle.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820868].message }}

garyv 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

The Thinkers VS the Believers. The eternal struggle.

And the reason it never ends is because there are still some out there that don't realize that you can be both.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820895].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

The Thinkers VS the Believers. The eternal struggle.

Actually you left out a third group... those that don't let minor details like a Constitution, regardless of what it says, get in their way.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820908].message }}

Claude Whitacre

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

Actually you left out a third group... those that don't let minor details like a Constitution, regardless of what it says, get in their way.

Nope. Two groups. This thread is glaring evidence of that.

Originally Posted by garyv

And the reason it never ends is because there are still some out there that don't realize that you can be both.

Possibly. But not in my experience.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820945].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Nope. Two groups. This thread is glaring evidence of that. .

Nope, three groups

.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820975].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Here's the actual text of the 2nd Amendment

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.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820983].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Here's the actual text of the 2nd Amendment
Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Seems like it, but it is a terrific example of discrimination against the left (pun intended)

.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820996].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

Seems like it, but it is a terrific example of discrimination against the left (pun intended)

.

It sure does get their panties in a bunch

That's why they are always saying the Constitution is out dated and should be changed.
Why individual rights and preventing government intrusion into a persons life bothers them so much is beyond me.
Maybe it's because they want government to tell them what they can and cannot do, while the Constitution tells government what it can and cannot do.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821061].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

It sure does get their panties in a bunch

That's why they are always saying the Constitution is out dated and should be changed.
Why individual rights and preventing government intrusion into a persons life bothers them so much is beyond me.
Maybe it's because they want government to tell them what they can and cannot do, while the Constitution tells government what it can and cannot do.

...or because they want to be the ones deciding what you and I can and cannot do.

[ 5 ] Thanks

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821184].message }}

Claude Whitacre

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

Nope, three groups

.

Nope, two groups.

Unless you include Dan Riffle. Three groups.

Originally Posted by garyv

Do you believe it's possible?

Gary; That's a fair question. And I gave it some thought. A person can be a Believer and a Thinker. In other words, that can have both qualities. But when talking about a specific subject, they strongly pull to one end or the other.

Again, that's just my experience. It isn't an absolute.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822637].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Gary; That's a fair question. And I gave it some thought. A person can be a Believer and a Thinker. In other words, that can have both qualities. But when talking about a specific subject, they strongly pull to one end or the other.

Again, that's just my experience. It isn't an absolute.

This answer and a previous one seems to imply there's only one conclusion a "thinker" can come to, the same one you did, and that's not true at all. Two thinkers can come to very different conclusions.

Two believers can too.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822854].message }}

Claude Whitacre

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

This answer and a previous one seems to imply there's only one conclusion a "thinker" can come to, the same one you did, and that's not true at all. Two thinkers can come to very different conclusions.

Two believers can too.

Dennis; Based on my two posts, I can see where you came to that. But it's wrong. It has nothing to do with conclusions. I see some pretty brilliant arguments that take on a different point of view than I have. And I see some people agree with me for reasons that are simply wrong.

Sure, two very intelligent thinkers can disagree, and two believers can disagree too. But for different reasons. Thinkers arrive at different conclusions. Believers simply have a different picture of the world.

It's the process of reasoning. When I see someone thinking and reasoning, that's pretty apparent (even if they disagree with me). Posting sound bites, and simply defending an inflexible position is another.

And it has nothing to do with politics, gun control, or any of that. It's simply watching the thought process.

"Gun control" is a subject that bring out very heated arguments from a few.
Some people are just passionate about it. That doesn't make them wrong. But the reasoning process is sometimes completely broken. And now they are simply Believing.

You can also be a Believer and be right.

Again, it's the process of thinking that determines the structure of the point of view (Thinking or Believing) It has nothing to do with conclusions.

And of course, I could be completely wrong about all of that. It's just an observation...

I know what I sound like, an overbearing, pompous dick. But reading continuous angry nonsense brings that out in me. Nobody's perfect.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823318].message }}

Dennis Gaskill 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Dennis; Based on my two posts, I can see where you came to that. But it's wrong. It has nothing to do with conclusions.

That's why I said it seems like that. I chose my words carefully.
- Thanks
Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823728].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Nope, two groups.

Unless you include Dan Riffle. Three groups.

Besides Thinkers and Believers, there are Trusters (is that a word?)

The definition all depends on what frame you are using. Believers can also be a subset of Thinkers, and that brings it down to one group. and Believers can also be a subset of Trusters leaving it at two groups... just not the two you mentioned

.

You imply some interesting things about groups. And it will all come back down to definitions.

It is a lot easier to foster agreement if the definitions are established up front... or at least are on common ground

.

As an aside, this whole discussion is about people arguing apples and oranges without putting any effort into making sure the arguments relate to each other.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823579].message }}

Claude Whitacre

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

Besides Thinkers and Believers, there are Trusters (is that a word?)

I see your point. I think of Trusters as Believers.

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

The definition all depends on what frame you are using. Believers can also be a subset of Thinkers, and that brings it down to one group. and Believers can also be a subset of Trusters leaving it at two groups... just not the two you mentioned .

Marvin; Eventually, we all have to be thought of as Believers. I'm almost pure Thinker, but if you ask me enough intelligent questions, eventually there will be things I have no direct evidence to support, and so now I'm a Believer.
I was talking about the thought process involved to arrive at conclusions. Thinkers arrive at their conclusions using a different path.

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

You imply some interesting things about groups. And it will all come back down to definitions.

Very true. And Thinkers and Believers are two categories that I made up. I may have picked it up somewhere, I don't remember.

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

It is a lot easier to foster agreement if the definitions are established up front... or at least are on common ground

.

Again, very true. And that is something I didn't do. I just made a general statement, that could have been taken several different ways. Not the best way to communicate.

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

As an aside, this whole discussion is about people arguing apples and oranges without putting any effort into making sure the arguments relate to each other.

Very true again. And I'm guilty of that too, although I usually make an effort to correct myself.

Originally Posted by garyv

Outside of mathematics there are very few absolutes or certainties, so even thinkers have to come to conclusions using a bit of belief. They may narrow down their conclusion to a very high probability, but then have to rely on what they believe to bridge the gap to certainty.

Even above you said "that's just my experience". You've admitted your conclusion is not forgone, which means your conclusion is based on a belief, which is in turn based on personal experience. - Many times if investigated further, most people's "beliefs" are based on personal experiences. That does not mean that they are not thinkers.

Not bad. Like I said to Marvin, eventually, if you dig far enough, beliefs become a part of any conclusion. But not religious or political beliefs. They are almost always pure beliefs, with little or nothing to support them except beliefs built on other beliefs.

As far as a belief based on personal experience, you have a real point there.
But as far as the gun issue, the posts I'm seeing here are not thought out, they are accepting a position, and arguing from that position.
Again, it isn't which point of view you have, it's how you arrived at it.
And when I say "experience", I mean direct experience, not the "borrowed experience" of political parties, or any one group. By the way, I've never seen a group, without an agenda. It's just part of what makes a group. I never accept what people say, just because a lot of people say it.

As far as everything needing belief (at some point), I agree, but to me, that point is way way down deep..not on the surface.
Like "believing" that my tires will rotate when the car moves. It truly is a belief, but it's based on a whole lot of direct experience, and the laws of physics.

Anyway, again, I was really talking about the thinking process, in determining if a thought is a belief or brought on by reasoning it out.

And again, I could simply be off base about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

That's why I said it seems like that. I chose my words carefully.

Dennis; I see that. Sometimes I wish I paid more attention to exactly what I was saying. Like now.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8824969].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

But not religious or political beliefs. They are almost always pure beliefs, with little or nothing to support them except beliefs built on other beliefs.

You may be assuming that anyone with a religious belief has never had a personal experience that has led them to their conclusion. Just as you've said your conclusion was based on your own personal experience - Many, not all, but many religious people have had a personal experience that has led them to their belief. Some things lack explanation, but conclusions can still be reached based on personal experience.

I may be a part of a group that doesn't believe that electricity exists or has power. If I put my finger into a socket, I can be converted into a believer rather quickly. I don't need a logical explanation of how it works (I may not understand it anyway) to believe that it exists and has power. That doesn't mean that I'm suddenly not a thinker - that just means that any logical explanation made to me on how electricity doesn't exist suddenly falls flat.

You may also be assuming that because you've put a lot of logical thought into it, that you're automatically right. Even the most thought out theories by the smartest people can have different conclusions when new light is shone on them.

Take Einstein's theory of relativity. Something we've all assumed as a forgone conclusion - now disproved using optical lasers.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8825959].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Nope, two groups.

Unless you include Dan Riffle. Three groups.

Gary; That's a fair question. And I gave it some thought. A person can be a Believer and a Thinker. In other words, that can have both qualities. But when talking about a specific subject, they strongly pull to one end or the other.

Again, that's just my experience. It isn't an absolute.

Outside of mathematics there are very few absolutes or certainties, so even thinkers have to come to conclusions using a bit of belief. They may narrow down their conclusion to a very high probability, but then have to rely on what they believe to bridge the gap to certainty.

Even above you said "that's just my experience". You've admitted your conclusion is not forgone, which means your conclusion is based on a belief, which is in turn based on personal experience. - Many times if investigated further, most people's "beliefs" are based on personal experiences. That does not mean that they are not thinkers.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823679].message }}

garyv 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Nope. Two groups. This thread is glaring evidence of that.

Possibly. But not in my experience.

Do you believe it's possible?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821503].message }}

socialentry Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

The Thinkers VS the Believers. The eternal struggle.

That's a pretty big claim right there but considering that the WF is overwhelmingly US-centric, it is perhaps understandable.

US culture is populist. The myth that the masses can bring political change without struggle and leadership is an annoying if persistent one.

There is no struggle between thinkers and believers. A successful political leader (not just a politician) will be in both groups.

The fact is the people that bring about real political change are by far and large, part of the intelligentsia who could have done a lot better for themselves (at least financially) had they chosen another path then politics.

"If you tell me let's bomb the Soviet Union tommorrow, I say why not today? If you say, we must bomb the Soviet Union at 3 o'clock, I say: Why not at 1 o'clock" - John Von Neumann

The only student of mine I was ever intimidated by. He was so quick. There was a seminar for advanced students in Zürich that I was teaching and von Neumann was in the class. I came to a certain theorem, and I said it is not proved and it may be difficult. Von Neumann didn't say anything but after five minutes he raised his hand. When I called on him he went to the blackboard and proceeded to write down the proof. After that I was afraid of von Neumann. George Pólya
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822674].message }}

SteveJohnson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Maybe I can help you out...what part of "well regulated" don't you understand?

And I agree, anyone that doesn't believe "well regulated" is part of the Second Amendment and ignores this phrase should be punished for being unconstitutional.

Maybe people ought to understand what the phrase 'well regulated' meant at the time it was written. What it means now isn't what it meant then.

The following of course isn't gospel, but one educated person's opinion. I am, though, pretty certain that these two words in the Second Amendment aren't the only ones in the Constitution that have come to mean something entirely different than what they used to.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821701].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Maybe people ought to understand what the phrase 'well regulated' meant at the time it was written. What it means now isn't what it meant then.

The following of course isn't gospel, but one educated person's opinion. I am, though, pretty certain that these two words in the Second Amendment aren't the only ones in the Constitution that have come to mean something entirely different than what they used to.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

Correct ... it isn't gospel and well regulated doesn't mean unregulated no matter how you look at it.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822812].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Correct ... it isn't gospel and well regulated doesn't mean unregulated no matter how you look at it.

Most states have citizen militias forming now - and those militia are very well disciplined - just as intended. Citizens armed and ready to fight domestic enemies. I would NOT even start to feel safe right now without those militia existing, even though a lot of pro-control people are scared of them.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822834].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Most states have citizen militias forming now - and those militia are very well disciplined - just as intended. Citizens armed and ready to fight domestic enemies. I would NOT even start to feel safe right now without those militia existing, even though a lot of pro-control people are scared of them.

Yeah, I'm certain there are a bunch of wackos out there conspiring to overthrow a government headed by a President they don't like ... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the next revolution and being anywhere around extremists of any kind makes me feel like moving even further away.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822852].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Yeah, I'm certain there are a bunch of wackos out there conspiring to overthrow a government headed by a President they don't like ... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the next revolution and being anywhere around extremists of any kind makes me feel like moving even further away.

Revolution won't happen because someone doesn't like a president - it will happen when the gov takes enough power that people have nothing else to lose.

If you examine the history of gov's that turn fascist - the people don't revolt when they are angry or when they are scared crapless - they revolt when they have nothing left. Unfortunately -- there's millions here that have already hit that point. Starting Jan - you can add about another 1.5 mil.

Historically, by the time people actually go into non-peaceful revolt - it's a matter of survival for them to do so. I always feel safer when I live by a citizen militia.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823008].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

Re your first statement about name calling:

"Who the F*&k is little James and Reid with their outdated both in style and content website. You do know that just about any assmonkey with 1/4 of a brain can launch a "website" don't you?"

making a statement that any assmonkey with 1/4 of a brain can build a website is not name calling ... pleeeze.

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

The biggest problem I see is people offering opinions based on hope as opposed to any evidence to support them. I have no problem with you offering out your opinions, but they will mean more if you provide some evidence they are not based on fiction.

Well, thank you very much for not minding that I express my opinion. I was just waiting for approval. Opinions don't need a citation, however outdated that citation is .... opinions can be based on morals, ethics, culture and other factors not related to proven fact.

This started out with a statement by you about gun control leading to less homicides, and I showed government data to show that isn't (always) true.

Believing something does not (by itself) make it true.[/QUOTE]

Again .. fiction. Please quote the exact post that I stated that gun control leads to less homicides. I think you need to read the posts slower and absorb the intended meaning rather than interjecting your own personal interpretation..

Originally Posted by HeySal

Revolution won't happen because someone doesn't like a president - it will happen when the gov takes enough power that people have nothing else to lose.

If you examine the history of gov's that turn fascist - the people don't revolt when they are angry or when they are scared crapless - they revolt when they have nothing left. Unfortunately -- there's millions here that have already hit that point. Starting Jan - you can add about another 1.5 mil.

Historically, by the time people actually go into non-peaceful revolt - it's a matter of survival for them to do so. I always feel safer when I live by a citizen militia.

I'm sorry but unemployment expiring and a poor economy aren't going to be the starting point for a revolution and are no indication that the US is turning "facist." I'll stop there. I prefer to stay out of the Twilight zone.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823101].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

making a statement that any assmonkey with 1/4 of a brain can build a website is not name calling ... pleeeze.

Well, thank you very much for not minding that I express my opinion. I was just waiting for approval. Opinions don't need a citation, however outdated that citation is .... opinions can be based on morals, ethics, culture and other factors not related to proven fact.

This started out with a statement by you about gun control leading to less homicides, and I showed government data to show that isn't (always) true.

Believing something does not (by itself) make it true.

Again .. fiction. Please quote the exact post that I stated that gun control leads to less homicides. I think you need to read the posts slower and absorb the intended meaning rather than interjecting your own personal interpretation..

"... which of course you would extrapolate that "tough gun laws" equals high murder rate, which is utter nonsense."

If you are saying things you don't mean, apologies for not following your logic since the graph shows the opposite of what you consider utter nonsense.

BTW, I got into a discussion with a woman sitting next to me on a plane back to LAX a year ago who had a PhD in Public Administration (?) By just asking some questions (and of course disagreeing with her position), she started to get somewhat agitated. I took that as a sign she really couldn't rationally discuss things her education implied she could handle <sigh.> It could have been a very interesting discussion. And I might have actually learned something... in addition to her comment she would flunk students who used Wikipedia as a reference.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823127].message }}

GarrieWilson 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

If you are saying things you don't mean, apologies for not following your logic since the graph shows the opposite of what you consider utter nonsense.

I don't really want to get into a drawn out discussion but that chart alone is BS.

The same cities with tough gun control laws also have high poverty and low education. So using the same, simple logic says if we get rid of the gun laws, poverty would decrease and education would rise.

I don't really see that happening.

Garrie
- Thanks
Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823148].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

"... which of course you would extrapolate that "tough gun laws" equals high murder rate, which is utter nonsense."

If you are saying things you don't mean, apologies for not following your logic since the graph shows the opposite of what you consider utter nonsense.

Again ... I was not even responding to a post by you. I was responding to the OP and nowhere did I say what you quoted me as saying.

This conversation is boring now. It's always gun nuts vs non gun nuts and always the same old tired arguments.

Anyone who thinks reasonable gun control measures are appropriate are anti-constitutionalists out to get your guns. Muahahaha.

No one's minds will be changed by your charts and graphs and glossy photos with circles and arrows on the back and no one opinions will be changed by mine.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823150].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Again ... I was not even responding to a post by you. I was responding to the OP and nowhere did I say what you quoted me as saying.

This conversation is boring now. It's always gun nuts vs non gun nuts and always the same old tired arguments.

Anyone who thinks reasonable gun control measures are appropriate are anti-constitutionalists out to get your guns. Muahahaha.

No one's minds will be changed by your charts and graphs and glossy photos with circles and arrows on the back and no one opinions will be changed by mine.

Well, while I don't consider it particularly boring, I do find it interesting you are willing to make statements you can't back up except to say it is your opinion.

Have a Happy New Year!

Marvin

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823569].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

Well, while I don't consider it particularly boring, I do find it interesting you are willing to make statements you can't back up except to say it is your opinion.

Have a Happy New Year!

Marvin

Well maybe you should get a dictionary since you can't grasp the definition of fact and opinion

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823578].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I'm sorry but unemployment expiring and a poor economy aren't going to be the starting point for a revolution and are no indication that the US is turning "facist." I'll stop there. I prefer to stay out of the Twilight zone.

Gee, one side says it will until not in their best interest!

Of course, no ONE thing can, at this point be declared a starting point!

Let me give you a what if. What if someone came in, said "nana na na na, YOU caannn't cath me!", and stole EVERY penny you had! The later stole your home if you had one, maybe your car, and left you with NOTHING!?!??!? WHAT would YOU do? It COULD happen! They've done a LOT of trial run of a sort. The last one that was very obvious to many happened around 2008. People make a big deal about stock markets but, for the most part, they were CAUSED by the economy. and te currency we ue is a kind of ponzi scheme. People don;t notice it so much because it ITSELF is the ponzi scheme.

Think about it. In a normal ponzi scheme, people buy shares in something. Let's call it X.

Person A buys X for $
Person B buys the SAME X for $
Person C buys the SAME X for $

As they want to withdraw, other people pay for the missing money, but then need more themselves.

With the government....
Person A works for $
Person B works for $
Person C decides not to work and is paid from A and B
Person D might take out a loan but pays back 4% more.

The bank doesn't have the money, and they are running short, so they borrow from the US(This is where "fed funds" comes into play) which steals the money from all holders of dollars and merely print more dollars. The value has now DROPPED! Oh well, if you have a decent job, that loan will be paid back quicker.

Of course, countries have generally, at some point, REFUSED to accept fiat currency. If they refuse ours, as they seem to be starting to do now, you may find things will go south QUICKLY!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823178].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Correct ... it isn't gospel and well regulated doesn't mean unregulated no matter how you look at it.

Exactly right. When looking at interpretations of the second amendment and terms such as "well regulated" and "militia" we can find all sorts of opinions including those from Originalists who look for the original intent and true meaning of the Framers. The very conservative SC Justice Scalia is an Originalist. So, lets take a look at what he said in the very conservative 2008 Supreme Court's ruling District of Columbia vs Heller, which was the first SC decision that directly dealt with the 2nd amendment since 1939:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

...Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

This ruling was considered a victory for gun owners because it upheld the right to own a handgun, but it clearly states that the second amendment right is not unlimited and can be regulated.

By the way, two branches of the federal government have power over the militia according to the constitution:

Congress - Article One

Section 8

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

The President - Article Two

Section 2

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

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822960].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Exactly right. When looking at interpretations of the second amendment and terms such as "well regulated" and "militia" we can find all sorts of opinions including those from Originalists who look for the original intent and true meaning of the Framers. The very conservative SC Justice Scalia is an Originalist. So, lets take a look at what he said in the very conservative 2008 Supreme Court's ruling District of Columbia vs Heller, which was the first SC decision that directly dealt with the 2nd amendment since 1939:

This ruling was considered a victory for gun owners because it upheld the right to own a handgun, but it clearly states that the second amendment right is not unlimited and can be regulated.

By the way, two branches of the federal government have power over the militia according to the constitution:

Congress - Article One

Section 8

The President - Article Two

Section 2

and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United State

Doesn't sound like they have control over the Militia unless they are employed in the service of the U.S.

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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Same goes for the President. He only has control over the Militia when it is called into actual service of the U.S.
When was the last time that Congress or the President called the Militia into service? We also have what are considered two types of Militia in the U.S.
Organized Militia and Reserve Militia.
The Reserve Militia is considered as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia. That is according to the Militia Act of 1903.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823096].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Doesn't sound like they have control over the Militia unless they are employed in the service of the U.S.
Same goes for the President. He only has control over the Militia when it is called into actual service of the U.S.
When was the last time that Congress or the President called the Militia into service? We also have what are considered two types of Militia in the U.S.
Organized Militia and Reserve Militia.
The Reserve Militia is considered as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia. That is according to the Militia Act of 1903.

President has never had to call on citizen's militia - because we've never been attacked on shore. Someone would have to be bizarrely stupid to attack a country in which most home owners own guns. :rolleyes:

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823282].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

President has never had to call on citizen's militia - because we've never been attacked on shore. Someone would have to be bizarrely stupid to attack a country in which most home owners own guns. :rolleyes:

I think the reserve militia is a good reason why every male between 17 and 45 should be trained in firearm use and safety and armed.
It reminds me of a joke (you may have seen on FB).
A German and Swiss are talking and the German says "Is it true all 500,000 of your male citizens are armed to protect your country instead of having a big army?
The Swiss says "Yes it's true".
"Well what if we invaded you with an army of 1,000,000?" asked the German.
"We'd shoot twice and go home."

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823301].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

No, it means self-regulated.

Well, then someone ought to clue in the fed and state governments ... because they DO regulate guns and related stuff. You're smart enough to know that there are many gun laws in existence.

Hmmmm ... self regulation by say ... a bunch of gangs, thugs, criminals, general gun nut wackos ... Thanks, but no thanks.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823164].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Regulation by a bunch of self-important, government-educated, power-hungry do-gooders?

No thanks.

It is a sad thing when the concept of self-government is no longer understood by the citizenry.

I'm sorry, but I trust the "citizenry" as much as you trust the government. The citizenry does not have a common goal for the good of the country. Undoubtedly, the same can be said for politicians, but at least we can vote for those who represent us instead of being bound by citizens that don't represent "us." They represent their own self interests.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823179].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

The citizenry is not required to have a common goal for anything at all. The only legitimate role of government is to make it safe for individuals to pursue their interests.

That is all it was ever meant to do and all it should do. I am uninterested in anyone's lofty goals. They are free to pursue them on their own, though, as long as they have the decency to leave me alone.

Well, that's the problem with the citizenry self-regulation. Portions of the citizenry will not leave you alone, whether you wish it or not. You can see it in the headlines daily. Some citizen decides to shoot you or rob you or rape you, or blow 20 children away for kicks ...

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823324].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, that's the problem with the citizenry self-regulation. Portions of the citizenry will not leave you alone, whether you wish it or not. You can see it in the headlines daily. Some citizen decides to shoot you or rob you or rape you, or blow 20 children away for kicks ...

And we have laws against those acts that are enforced by the government.
The only difference between what Ken said and what we have now is the government also has laws now that try to regulate what non harmful interests we can pursue.
Citizen self-regulation doesn't mean everyone can just do what they want. Do you decide what behavior is appropriate for yourself, or do you look to the government to tell you?
In a sense we all self-regulate. If we decide to do something the government deems illegal we still make that decision.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823461].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, that's the problem with the citizenry self-regulation. Portions of the citizenry will not leave you alone, whether you wish it or not. You can see it in the headlines daily. Some citizen decides to shoot you or rob you or rape you, or blow 20 children away for kicks ...

But those are NOT normal citizens. They are criminals. I don't care what law you enact - you won't stop these people. If I want an illegal gun, all I have to do is take a walk downtown with enough cash to get it.

Also - the amount of murders committed by stabbing actually out-numbers those done via guns. What exactly do we do about that one?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823468].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

But those are NOT normal citizens. They are criminals. I don't care what law you enact - you won't stop these people. If I want an illegal gun, all I have to do is take a walk downtown with enough cash to get it.

Also - the amount of murders committed by stabbing actually out-numbers those done via guns. What exactly do we do about that one?

Fact check:
Facebook post says more people were murdered with knives, body parts or blunt objects than with rifles | PolitiFact

It isn't really just about gun violence and murder. There are plenty of other self interests that are detrimental to the health and safety of many while benefiting just the few.

And what exactly is a normal citizen? We are not the UNITED States of America. We are deeply divided States of America, IMO and I wouldn't give you 2 cents for many of the "NORMAL" citizens of this country. Self regulate? Yeah, right.

It's all academic anyway. We've got the government we have and I'd rather live in the US than most countries. I'm not anti-government. There are good and bad in the government, like anything else.

Snowden thought the NSA was stepping on our rights ... and they are, but I wonder how he's liking life in Russia right now.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823526].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Snowden thought the NSA was stepping on our rights ... and they are, but I wonder how he's liking life in Russia right now.

Snowden wouldn't have to be living in Russia right now if we didn't have gestapo running our DOJ. He could have leaked his info to the press without worry of a branch of the government impeding the freedom of the press. The easiest way to stifle the 2nd amendment is to do away with the 1st.

The whole Snowden situation is glaring proof that our government could care less about the constitution of the United States. Not only will they impede our privacy as citizens, but they'll trample the 1st amendment and the freedom of the press to do it. - Never before have more members of our own press been spied upon, subpoenaed, and called criminals - for doing their job as reporters. - So much so that the DOJ has actually had to change the language of their investigating guidelines to make it less obvious that they were calling journalists "criminals".

The whole point of the constitution is individual freedoms - so that we don't have to run to places like Russia to secure our freedom. The fact that he had to do so is just blaring proof that there have been breeches in our own constitution.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8824952].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Snowden wouldn't have to be living in Russia right now if we didn't have gestapo running our DOJ. He could have leaked his info to the press without worry of a branch of the government impeding the freedom of the press. The easiest way to stifle the 2nd amendment is to do away with the 1st.

The theft of classified information from an organization that you work for is a crime and not a right under the constitution. Gestapo .... right. hahaha.

I applaud Snowden for embarrassing the NSA and hope that some controls are placed on them and also hope he's enjoying his new accommodations. We all know what a freedom lover he is, so I'm sure he'll find his new digs to be right up his alley.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8825027].message }}

Unity96387 12 years ago

Best definition of gun control:

ACCURATE SHOOTING IN THE HANDS OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY RESPONSIBLE PERSON
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8825172].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

The theft of classified information from an organization that you work for is a crime and not a right under the constitution. Gestapo .... right. hahaha.

While the taking of classified information is illegal - the reporting on it is not. Never before in history has a reporter been convicted using the espionage act for distributing classified information they've been given. Our current "gestapo" has put forth an enormous effort to try and prosecute journalists for reporting on this info that has made them look bad.

I don't know if you remember it - but Daniel Ellsberg did the same thing in the early 70s - he stole classified documents from the government - The Pentagon Papers - It contained information that would thoroughly embarrass the current admin at the time - Nixon - and even the previous - Kennedy/Johnson. In fact Nixon tried so hard to keep the classified documents a secret that it led to an illegal break in at the Watergate office complex.

Daniel Ellsberg did not have to flee to another country though, and in fact the case against him was thrown out in court because of... GET THIS - the government was illegally wiretapping his phone. - Ironic - sounds familiar.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8825873].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

While the taking of classified information is illegal - the reporting on it is not. Never before in history has a reporter been convicted using the espionage act for distributing classified information they've been given. Our current "gestapo" has put forth an enormous effort to try and prosecute journalists for reporting on this info that has made them look bad.

I don't know if you remember it - but Daniel Ellsberg did the same thing in the early 70s - he stole classified documents from the government - The Pentagon Papers - It contained information that would thoroughly embarrass the current admin at the time - Nixon - and even the previous - Kennedy/Johnson. In fact Nixon tried so hard to keep the classified documents a secret that it led to an illegal break in at the Watergate office complex.

Daniel Ellsberg did not have to flee to another country though, and in fact the case against him was thrown out in court because of... GET THIS - the government was illegally wiretapping his phone. - Ironic - sounds familiar.

Except that the government wasn't wiretapping Snowden. He wanted fame and glory ... a big shot in the media. If he had been smart and didn't want to own the crime and all the fame, he would have simply stolen the documents, prearranged a safe and less hostile place than Russia to go to, and then leaked them anonymously. He got what we wanted ... to be famous. Only it backfired because he thought countries would be bending over backwards to take him in. He was wrong about that.

Again ... glad he did it. I enjoy seeing the government squirm over this one, but stealing classified docs is still a crime and he is not a reporter and no reporter has been arrested for reporting the leaked docs.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8825895].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Except that the government wasn't wiretapping Snowden.

They were wiretapping everyone - that's the information he leaked. And it's completely naive to think they weren't wiretapping him after the info leaked. You can bet that they were wiretapping not only him but everyone he ever talked to in his life. - That's the irony, this admin is repeating history. Only this time they'll get away with it, because you no longer have to physically break into someone's office to steal their files.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826451].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

They were wiretapping everyone - that's the information he leaked. And it's completely naive to think they weren't wiretapping him after the info leaked. You can bet that they were wiretapping not only him but everyone he ever talked to in his life. - That's the irony, this admin is repeating history. Only this time they'll get away with it, because you no longer have to physically break into someone's office to steal their files.

To call acquiring phone metadata wiretapping is a stretch, but I knew that's where this would go.

So the government is listening in on all my phone calls?

No. At least, that's not what the document obtained by The Guardian shows. The court order, issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, only sought metadata — a fancy word for information like what numbers you called, what time you made the calls, and how long the calls were. The order does not seek the audio of calls.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826544].message }}

ThomM 12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

To call acquiring phone metadata wiretapping, but I knew that's where this would go.

The names have changed, but it's still the same game.
Cell phones have different data then traditional line phones.
The Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 gave the government authority to "tap" phones of foreign powers to gather information. The Patriot Act expanded those activities to include domestic phones if the people are suspected of being part of a terrorist group. That was enhanced by the current administration in the Patriot Act to include collecting metadata on pretty much everyone.
Supposedly they can only look at and use that data if they are granted a subpoena by a special court (a rubber stamp deal).
Bush was the first recent president to be accused of illegal wiretapping back around 2000. He justified it by saying it was to combat terrorism, and we all know how well that worked out.
Bottom line is it's an invasion of privacy. Only myself, the phone company, and the person I'm calling need any part of the information transfered in a call. If the government want's it, let them get a subpoena in a court like they are suppose to do.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826594].message }}
garyv 12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

To call acquiring phone metadata wiretapping, but I knew that's where this would go.

Of course you did - because according to anyone that's not technically challenged, it's an obvious breach of the 4th amendment. It's illegal search and seizure. Once the current ruling is kicked up to a judge that is more technically educated, they'll realize that meta-data provides a lot more information about a person than just who they're calling. In fact many times the meta-data can provide more context about a person's behavior than the actual words being spoken.

Here's an article that explains it better than I can:

Phew, NSA Is Just Collecting Metadata. (You Should Still Worry) | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

If there are any tech-savy non-corrupt judges left, Snowden will be able to return to the United States.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826674].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Hmmmm ... self regulation by say ... a bunch of gangs, thugs, criminals, general gun nut wackos ... Thanks, but no thanks.

You do realize that if this statement were true, with the amount of guns owned in the United States, most of the U.S. would be dead by now.

A vast majority of gun owners, those who choose to protect themselves under the shield of the 2nd amendment, are some of the most ethical people you'll meet. Making blanket bigoted statements doesn't help your argument.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8827837].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

You do realize that if this statement were true, with the amount of guns owned in the United States, most of the U.S. would be dead by now.

A vast majority of gun owners, those who choose to protect themselves under the shield of the 2nd amendment, are some of the most ethical people you'll meet. Making blanket bigoted statements doesn't help your argument.

How dare you call me a bigot. It has nothing to do with bigotry. I have probably met more gun owners than you by a long shot since guns was my father's business and I attended the national rifle matches annually until I was old enough to have enough of family vacations at the National Rifle Matches (oh boy, Dad ... the Rattle Battle is today? Whooopeeee). I grew up with men and women who loved the sports of both hunting and rifle matches and never met one of them who was in the category of people that I have little to no respect for.

Let's go into what a gun nut is.

Those people who oppose every form of gun control, no matter how reasonable those controls are, because they think the constitution reads broadly that any idiot with a gun can do as they wish ... NRA dittoheads blindly following the NRA agenda, those who could care less about gun violence in this country, about 20 dead children and scores of others killed by senseless gun violence. Those who think it's perfectly ok to shoot to death and unarmed teenager, carrying a soda and skittles.

Those with a dystopian view of life in America ... that danger lurks everywhere and every person should be armed to the teeth so that every idiot with a gun, whether actually trained to use one or not, can pull out their weapons and have a shootout, should a criminal emerge with a gun. Even highly trained police officers often shoot the wrong people. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/ny...anted=all&_r=0 and Video Released Of Police Officer Shooting Empire State Building Shooter | Mediaite as examples. There are many situations, particularly in crowds, that the philosophy of "every idiot with a gun" doesn't work. If it did, why then do most gun shows not allow a loaded weapon to be brought in?

ThinkProgress compiled a list of 51 gun shows that banned loaded guns. all between January 11-January 27. Why don’t gun shows allow loaded weapons? To maintain “a safe environment.”
and this Gun Show Shootings: 6 Wounded At Mishaps On Fairgrounds Since Gun Appreciation Day and this 5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana - U.S. News

Some of these people actually blow their own hands off at gun shows playing with loaded weapons because they don't know what they're freaking doing, not that I give a damn about their own hands.

They don't hunt, are not sportsmen, but are a bunch of gun toting blowhards who would wear a pistol in plain sight to church, restaurant or other public place because "keeping and bearing arms" is their freaking right.

Their spiel and enthusiasm is all about self protection, but someone interested in solely self protection doesn't bother to be an exhibitionist gun wacko. These idiots want to make a gun statement everywhere they go. They want to carry guns openly in public just because it's so gosh-darned normal, and their intention is clearly to intimidate others, physically and politically. Guns scare people for good reason. And people with guns know that. They're obsessed with guns, and again, not on a sportsmen level .... just on a political and gun nut level.

If you think bigotry comprises of people who disrespect gangs, thugs, criminals, gun nut wackos, then you don't know the definition of bigotry.

What part of "I don't trust a bunch of self-regulated idiots with guns" don't you understand? I live in the US ... not a lawless country and I wouldn't have it any other way.

In case you still don't understand, a gun nut wacko is not the same thing as a responsible gun owner. But you like to misrepresent facts and statements to further your arguments.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828010].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

How dare you call me a bigot.

I didn't call you a bigot - I said you made a bigoted statement. There's a difference.

Your blanket statement was that those who choose to be a part of a self regulated militia are: "a bunch of gangs, thugs, criminals, general gun nut wackos".

Not true - yes militias do attract more of those type of people during times when the 2nd amendment or other parts of the constitution are being threatened or compromised, but for the most part when you consider their size and number, they are decent citizens. So those type of blanket statements you make are bigoted.

big•ot•ed (ˈbɪg ə tɪd)

adj. extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828095].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

ig•ot•ed (ˈbɪg ə tɪd)

adj. extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion.

It doesn't take much research to find the types that form self-regulated militias. So yeah, I'm intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of these people.

Nine members of a Michigan Christian militia group, Hutaree, including group leader David Brian Stone, were charged March 29 with seditious conspiracy, possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, teaching the use of explosives, and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction - homemade bombs. They were rounded up as part of a multi-state FBI investigation into threats from the militia group Hutaree Militia Raided by FBI - Hutaree Militia Members Arrested in FBI Raids - Pictures - CBS News

ATLANTA - Four suspected members of a fringe north Georgia militia group were arrested Tuesday by federal authorities and charged with plotting to buy explosives and trying to make a deadly toxin in a bizarre plot to attack unnamed government officials.

The four men in their 60s and 70s were part of a group that also tried to obtain an unregistered explosive device and sought out the complex formula to produce ricin, a biological toxin that can be lethal in small doses, according to a federal complaint. FBI arrests 4 Georgia militia members - CBS News

A 24-year-old Minnesota man with ties to an anti-government militia group is under arrest for what now appears to be a plot to bomb a local police department.

Buford "Bucky" Rogers, of Montevideo, Minn., only has been charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, but other federal charges - and possibly other arrests - may be in the works, authorities tell Hatewatch.

Rogers, a self-proclaimed member of the Black Snake Militia, was arrested by an FBI SWAT team on Friday when agents found homemade bombs and firearms at the home of the suspect's father, Jeffrey Rogers. The father was not arrested.

"The FBI believes that a terror attack was disrupted by law enforcement personnel and that the lives of several local residents were potentially saved," the agency said in a statement. Reported Minnesota Militia Member Arrested in Terror Plot | Hatewatch

Federal officials arrested four members of a Georgia militia group Tuesday, alleging that the men were planning to attack state and federal buildings with guns and explosives.

They say the men also intended to deploy the deadly toxin ricin in some cities, including Atlanta; one suspect described a plan to blow the substance out of a moving car on the freeway. Georgia militia members arrested, accused of plotting ricin attack - latimes.com

member of a Minutemen militia was arrested Saturday night for allegedly pointing his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle at a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy.

Richard Malley, 49, and two other group members were patrolling the area along Interstate 8 in search of illegal activity when two deputies approached, according to court documents. The Minutemen watch for unauthorized immigrants and drug smugglers crossing to Arizona from Mexico.

Malley pointed his rifle and flashlight at one of the deputies. He was also armed with a .45 caliber pistol and a fixed-blade knife. The deputy identified himself as a law enforcement officer, but Malley did not lower his weapon. Instead, he demanded that the deputy provide him with identification.

The deputy showed Malley his Maricopa County Sheriff uniform, including his badge, the patches on his sleeves and the word "Sheriff" across his chest. He then asked Malley to lay down his weapons, but Malley refused. Arizona Minuteman militia member arrested for pointing AR-15 rifle at sheriff's deputy -- Society's Child -- Sott.net

Five members and associates of a Fairbanks, Alaska, right-wing militia group were arrested yesterday for allegedly plotting to kidnap or kill Alaska State Troopers and a Fairbanks judge. BREAKING: Alaska Militia Members Arrested for Plot to Kidnap or Kill Police | Blog | Media Matters for America

McVeigh, an American militia movement sympathizer who was a Gulf War veteran, had detonated an explosive-filled Ryder rental truck parked in front of the building. McVeigh's co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, had assisted in the bomb preparation. Motivated by his hatred of the federal government and angered by what he perceived as its mishandling of the 1993 Waco siege and the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992, McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the second anniversary of the deadly fire that ended the siege at Waco.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828173].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

It doesn't take much research to find the types that form self-regulated militias. So yeah, I'm intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of these people.

What you've posted is but a fraction of 1 percent of the people that are actually in militias. Find about a million more of these posts, and then you might have the right to a blanket statement.

By the way - and you may already know this being that your dad owned a gun shop - but a lot of "militias" don't actually call themselves militias any more, simply because of the negative astigmatism attached to the word militia by today's liberal journalists and politicians. They call themselves "hunting" or "fishing" clubs.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828418].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

What you've posted is but a fraction of 1 percent of the people that are actually in militias. Find about a million more of these posts, and then you might have the right to a blanket statement.

By the way - and you may already know this being that your dad owned a gun shop - but a lot of "militias" don't actually call themselves militias any more, simply because of the negative astigmatism attached to the word militia by today's liberal journalists and politicians. They call themselves "hunting" or "fishing" clubs.

Yeah, I see the news about illegal activities from hunting and fishing clubs all the time. :rolleyes:

But you win. This is a thread for gun nuts and other points of view are met with being accused of bigotry, etc. so carry on. I'm out. It's so pointless engaging in this conversation with y'all.

If you want the history of militia extremism, may I recommend that you buy a book

American Extremism: History, Politics and the... Not an affiliate link

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828426].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Yeah, I see the news about illegal activities from hunting and fishing clubs all the time. :rolleyes:

But you win. This is a thread for gun nuts and other points of view are met with being accused of bigotry, etc. so carry on. I'm out. It's so pointless engaging in this conversation with y'all.

LOL - I'm surprised you don't see the irony in your statement.

-

But you're right. Conversations do become pointless once you try to define a group of people w/ a blanket statement that is so vile. Especially when some of the people you're conversing with are a part of that group.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828455].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

LOL - I'm surprised you don't see the irony in your statement.

-

But you're right. Conversations do become pointless once you try to define a group of people w/ a blanket statement that is so vile. Especially when some of the people you're conversing with are a part of that group.

I make no apologies to extremist militia members. I make no apologies to extremists of any kind, and if you're one, I don't apologize to you either. I find your implying that people who differ with you are guilty of bigotry, vile, but if you are a member of some non-violent, non-criminal hunting/fishing/militia, more power to you, but the word militia has a bad connotation for a very well deserved reason.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828537].message }}

garyv 12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

but the word militia has a bad connotation for a very well deserved reason.

And that being that a fraction of one percent of them are idiots. And then the media leads gullible people into believing that idiocy is prevalent amongst a majority of militias. It may be prevalent in their news stories about militias - but there's an obvious agenda for doing that. Anyone with an elementary grasp of math can still figure out that a majority of militias and those in them are not idiots, thugs, criminals, or wackos.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828579].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I make no apologies to extremist militia members. I make no apologies to extremists of any kind, and if you're one, I don't apologize to you either. I find your implying that people who differ with you are guilty of bigotry, vile, but if you are a member of some non-violent, non-criminal hunting/fishing/militia, more power to you, but the word militia has a bad connotation for a very well deserved reason.

To you. Just like the word hippie had a bad connotation to some, or the word biker. But just like the vast majority of hippies and bikers don't deserve or live up to those implications, neither do the majority of those who are the militia. Maybe in your mind everyone who considers themselves in a militia is vile or an extremist, but the reality is usually something different.
If they where all like you think we would be in a constant state of civil war.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828595].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

To you. Just like the word hippie had a bad connotation to some, or the word biker. But just like the vast majority of hippies and bikers don't deserve or live up to those implications, neither do the majority of those who are the militia. Maybe in your mind everyone who considers themselves in a militia is vile or an extremist, but the reality is usually something different.
If they where all like you think we would be in a constant state of civil war.

Many militias are the ones who are preparing for the overthrow of the government and civil war. Not me, thank you very much, and vile was Gary's word to describe someone who disagrees with him.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828612].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Many militias are the ones who are preparing for the overthrow of the government and civil war. Not me, thank you very much, and vile was Gary's word to describe someone who disagrees with him.

Again you mis-quote me. I've called your words vile. You made a blanket statement about militias calling them: "a bunch of gangs, thugs, criminals, general gun nut wackos". To me that's a vile statement. I don't know enough about you to describe you as vile - and I wouldn't do that anyway.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828641].message }}

Midnight Oil 12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Let's go into what a gun nut is.

Got it. How would you describe an anti-gun nut?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828132].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Law by survey is a truly ridiculous notion. Who cares what some statistician says? The 2nd Amendment remains. Since their is no chance of repealing it, because the people want it, lawless activists seek to circumvent the supreme law of the land via lies, statistics, propaganda, and dissembling.

I believe 30 days in a county jail for anyone proposing unconstitutional legislation should be mandatory.

I think a permanent ejection from public office is warranted, myself.

Crime does go up where people have no defense and the criminals know it. You'd be surprised how much safer a criminal feels not having to wonder if the person they are attacking is defenseless or not.

Of course, you have to realize there are towns that just have more criminals no matter what - because that is what was bred there. I come from a suburb of Flint Michigan. Flint's not a place where guns are controlled - and it's close to being the murder capital of the world. When I was a kid it was the cocaine capital. The racism on boths sides - white/black, black/white - was thick. Either color you were, there were places you just didn't go in that town and expect to walk back out okay. What I'm saying is - that it was ALWAYS violent. Take those people's guns and it's not gonna make a hell of a lot of difference - they'll just use knives instead, serious. If I lived there today - I would NOT be without a concealed carry permit and that gun would be on my person at all times. I know that town and what kind of criminal insanity it breeds. I worked in a rape crisis center there in 1979, and I'm serious as a crutch about that one. They put gun control in that town and it's going to become a massacre zone.

Chicago is the same thing -- name a damned time that place wasn't a violent mess.

Gun control might not start the crime spree in some of these places -- but it does leave the wrong people defenseless.

It's all rhetoric, anyway. We have a constitution and bill of rights that makes gun ownership not only the law of the land but a personal responsibility of the people - because when politicians decide they can rule instead of serve and make up their own laws instead of following ours, it's our duty as citizens to get them the hell out of our gov offices. About the time they try to take that 2nd Amendment is when has gotten to be high time to defend it.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820549].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

It's all rhetoric, anyway. We have a constitution and bill of rights that makes gun ownership not only the law of the land but a personal responsibility of the people - because when politicians decide they can rule instead of serve and make up their own laws instead of following ours, it's our duty as citizens to get them the hell out of our gov offices. About the time they try to take that 2nd Amendment is when has gotten to be high time to defend it.

Totally and factually incorrect. The US Constitution says "arms". It makes no mention of guns ANYWHERE in the document. And no where does it even imply that owning a gun is a personal responsibility. You don't get to just make things up.

So, since the Second Amendment refersd to arms and not guns, according to some, this should mean any and all arms should be legal and totally unregulated, including nuclear, bombs, tanks, canons, missles, gas, biological, etc.

Why aren't stinger missles and launchers considered "arms"? If I'm being attacked by drones, I want the right to shoot them down!!!!

Don't stop at just guns being a constitutional right. It's "arms". The Constitution says so itself.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820572].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Totally and factually incorrect. The US Constitution says "arms". It makes no mention of guns ANYWHERE in the document. And no where does it even imply that owning a gun is a personal responsibility. You don't get to just make things up.

So, since the Second Amendment refersd to arms and not guns, according to some, this should mean any and all arms should be legal and totally unregulated, including nuclear, bombs, tanks, canons, missles, gas, biological, etc.

Why aren't stinger missles and launchers considered "arms"? If I'm being attacked by drones, I want the right to shoot them down!!!!

Don't stop at just guns being a constitutional right. It's "arms". The Constitution says so itself.

Seems you are a tad selective on the information yourself. Dig around - see what the forefathers who wrote the bill had to say -- see what some of the Constitutional supporting docs have to say.

For an example --- Have you forgotten about the Declaration of Independence? Hmmm? That's just one of our founding documents.

Do NOT forget that the Bill of Rights was written by men who refused to let the English confiscate their guns. A lot of people who want to subvert that bill have found "interpretations", yet the linguisitics of the bill do not LEAVE interpretations. "the PEOPLE" not "THE GOV". Get it? The purpose of the people having guns is to stop the gov when it becomes tyrannical. All the juxtaposing of the wording in the world won't get anyone around this one.

If I had time right now I'd post them but right now I have other things to do as my computer will be shut down for a tad.

I will say, though, that taking one piece out of one document and trying to translate it as the whole of the law is very insipid in a legal/governmental aspect. There are always supporting documents that must be considered when making judgements - and it seems our people are not well educated enough in gov or law to know what to do with these noxious little arguments about one phrase in a whole stack of documentation.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820876].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

So a quick google check brings up:

Gun Control - Just Facts

and that site tends to show increases in murder rates where gun control is implemented.

Yeah, and such a dependable source of information.

"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010

Who the F*&k is little James and Reid with their outdated both in style and content website. You do know that just about any assmonkey with 1/4 of a brain can launch a "website" don't you?

Originally Posted by Kurt

Maybe I can help you out...what part of "well regulated" don't you understand?

And I agree, anyone that doesn't believe "well regulated" is part of the Second Amendment and ignores this phrase should be punished for being unconstitutional.

Most in these conversations ignore it.

Originally Posted by HeySal

It's all rhetoric, anyway. We have a constitution and bill of rights that makes gun ownership not only the law of the land but a personal responsibility of the people

Please post the part of the constitution that says that gun ownership is a personal responsbility. I'd love to see the part that attempts to legislate that people have to or are strongly advised to own guns.

... and before anyone accuses me of wanting to take people's guns away from them just because I support some measures of gun control, while I don't personally own a gun, I do have instant access to military grade rifles.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822038].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

BTW, "militia" is also mentioned in the Second Amendment. Some tend to ignore the phrase "a well regulated militia" and feel it should be ignored or don't understand the context.

Well, more context of "well regulated militia" can be found in the US Constitution, to which the Second Amendment was attached.

Here's the part of the constitution that mentions "militia":

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It's obvious that our Constitution is speaking of keeping arms as part of the US militia, which is to be "well regulated" by the US government, and that the Second Amendment is just that, an amendment to the US Constitution and we need to consider that the Constitution says about militias when discussing the Second Amendment.

Funny how many "constitutionalists" never mention the contents of the Constitution.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820564].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Obvious to some, except those falling for all the NRA propaganda the past few decades.

Originally Posted by Kurt

It's obvious that our Constitution is speaking of keeping arms as part of the US militia, which is to be "well regulated" by the US government, and that the Second Amendment is just that, an amendment to the US Constitution and we need to consider that the Constitution says about militias when discussing the Second Amendment.

Funny how many "constitutionalists" never mention the contents of the Constitution.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820565].message }}

Kurt 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Obvious to some, except those falling for all the NRA propaganda the past few decades.

I wonder what these folks would have said to Wyatt Earp in Tombstone when he wouldn't allow any guns in town? You think they cried about Second Amendment rights to him? LOL

I love how they pick and choose the one small phrase that best suits them, then ignore everything else about a militia.

Plus, if they realized what "keep and bear arms" really means, it would add to the context of a militia even more. Hint: "keep and bear" is a legal term that dates back to Roman times. And our forefathers were very well aware of Roman history and customs.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820587].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

BTW, "militia" is also mentioned in the Second Amendment. Some tend to ignore the phrase "a well regulated militia" and feel it should be ignored or don't understand the context.

Well, more context of "well regulated militia" can be found in the US Constitution, to which the Second Amendment was attached.

Here's the part of the constitution that mentions "militia":

It's obvious that our Constitution is speaking of keeping arms as part of the US militia, which is to be "well regulated" by the US government, and that the Second Amendment is just that, an amendment to the US Constitution and we need to consider that the Constitution says about militias when discussing the Second Amendment.

Funny how many "constitutionalists" never mention the contents of the Constitution.

MYTH 8: "The right guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia' that can be compared today to the National Guard."

The Second Amendment reads: "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." In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no "buts" or "excepts." It is a straightforward statement affirming the people's right to possess firearms. The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a "collective right" or a "right of states to form militias" rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term "militia" refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...." Moreover, historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers, clearly indicate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guard against t he tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution feared could be perpetrated by any professional armed body of government. The arms, records and ultimate control of the National Guard today lie with the Federal Government, so that it clearly is not the "militia" protected from the federal government.

A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by "the people"--a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all "persons who are part of a national community" (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
The second and third bold is mine.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820941].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Who would have thought that an 11 word sentence that can be boiled down to a mere FIVE would be discussed for DECADES, and have TONS of TOMES written about it? If the authors saw the effort just in the LAWS to do what they clearly demanded should never be done.

WOW! And the idea that felons ARE, in effect, ALLOWED to? People will, even today, say "never again", while pushing it to happen again. I wonder if they EVER consider that.

I'm not a gun collector. Try as I might, I may never even be financially comfortable. For all I know, I may be homeless next month. But I certainly am not so jealous, or thoughtless, that I would want to condemn people to what I see is only a few short steps away. Steps that various people have ALREADY committed themselves to.

Just yesterday, I watched what I guess was a PTA meeting where they were discussing common core. They even had a state representative talk of how things were handled. Teachers are now at the point where many of THEM don't even know what the kids are being taught in "their OWN CLASSROOMS!"! You see, several classes are now in ONE room, and the "teachers" are "facilitators" there ONLY to "answer" questions! The kids are taught on computer from pre-programmed courses. A lot of material is on THEIR system ONLY!

Kids asking parents for help on some homework can't get the help because things have to be done a way the parents were NEVER taught!

So what did THEY say they saw coming down the pike?
Less teacher involvement.
Teachers getting laid off.
Parents losing the respect of their kids.
etc...
And the kids are NOT being taught well anyway.

Frankly, if I were king, I would try to get europe to abandon those jerks, and tell the leaders to pay all the back taxes, etc... and GET LOST! They were never our friends, or even just nice guys trying to help. Their first main enforcement plan is to have the largest military on the planet. DONE! Their SECOND main enforcement plan is to disarm all others. That might be 50% done. They are ALREADY trying to achieve their other goals.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820594].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Kurt,

You can ALSO argue "FREE STATE". And the first 10 amendments were to LIMIT government. By YOUR definition, their very existence went against what they said they wanted to, some time in the distant future, achieve. Of course it says "shall not be infringed". You don't SERIOUSLY think they were speaking towards the average citizen, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armaments

Arm IS a more general term. I wonder if the term gun, or even rifle was all that common back then. Bullets hadn't even been invented yet. And keep and bare arms IS a common term. it means like have access and actually use. If you wanted to pick apart the constitution, you could find LOTS of words that don't seem quite right. QUARTER? QUARTER? As a VERB? What the....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_t..._and_bear_arms

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820605].message }}

Michael Mayo

12 years ago

My ideal of gun control is, Ready, Aim, Fire!

Have a Great Day!
Michael

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820966].message }}

David Maschke

12 years ago

This 75 part video course on the basics of sniping is the best gun control information available today.

SNIPER 101 Part 26 - BASIC External Ballistics -...

It covers the atomic and molecular effects of the barrel, to cartridge selection, to the spin of the earth, which is video 74.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821231].message }}

Enfusia

12 years ago

Being a disabled former combat Marine and having been in truly lawless countries where I came back and others didn't and having been raised in Wyoming but lived in many U.S. big cities including a few on the top of the murder lists here's my thoughts.

1. They don't want your guns because they don't want you to kill one and other. They want your guns so you're helpless and at their mercy.

2. Laws OBVIOUSLY don't keep people from committing crimes so why do we just pile on more laws? Not for our safety but for control.

3. It starts with education. How many schools were closed this year and how many do they have slated to close next year? You keep dumbing down a population long enough and they will believe your staged mass shooting events were actually real and committed by regular folks. They will be scared and turn to you for protection. Scared and stupid are a easy to manipulate.

4. Where I grew up everyone had several guns. This is no joke: I rode my horse to school accompanied by my dog a Blue Healer. About a block from the school was my Aunts moms house and I would drop my rifle there and head to school. We had a small stable and would stall my horse and dog.

My point is that everyone had guns, most every guy had a gun rack and most had a pistol on their side. There was almost no crime to speak of. Maybe a couple of fist fights on Friday nights etc...

Folks had common sense, they were courteous and had honor. Not all mind you but by far the vast majority. Men worked hard and maybe got a little wild on the weekends but that was about it. Except for that one dumba$$ tourist who honked his horn at the Elk heard that was meandering through the center of town. Bad idea on an epic scale.

5. It's the people who are at fault not guns. Guns just give cowards a weapon to extend their lack of self control.

Most American men are a bunch a sissy's. You see wanna be tough guys calling themselves gang bangers doing drive bye's and the only thing they hit was an old woman and a kid. What a buncha panty wastes.

You really want to kill someone use a sword, look a man in the eye while you're killing him, at least have that much moxy. You see drive bye shootings all the time but when was the last time you ever saw a drive bye beheading?

Buncha cowards driving bye and spraying lead, hitting innocent bystanders.

But my personal feelings aside, it's the people not the weapons. People are losing it, not guns.

Here's the deal. We must keep our guns to defend ourselves from tyranny. If you don't think it will happen once you are disarmed you are out of your cotton picking mind.

But we have to keep people from killing each other. This won't be solved by taking away guns but by removing the reasons people are killing in the first place.

Patrick

[ 7 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free eBook =>
The Secret To Success In Any Business
Yes, Any Business!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821313].message }}

socialentry

Banned 12 years ago

For the second amendment to be of any use against "tyranny", the army would have to be on the verge of rebellion itself and I simply don't think the US army careerists would have the motivations to do so.

For all the bravado about tyranny, live and let die, an uprising would most likely be quickly wiped out.

In the long run, the US will become a social democratic country like most of the countries in the EU and there's not much the right can do about it lest the GOP radically changes. This will via the democratic process, it's just a matter of culture and demographics.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821381].message }}

GarrieWilson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Eventually the US, the last , best hope of the world, will straighten up and fly right. That, too, is a matter of culture and demographics.

The plain fact is that too many people will not accept European socialism.

Fly right according to whom?

More people will accept "EU socialism" than you think. Remember, most people bitch and moan to their friends and online but only a small portion actually do anything to make a difference.

Personally, I welcome some "EU socialism."

Garrie

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821622].message }}

GarrieWilson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Don't worry, Garrie. We'll leave a little porridge in the pot for you. I'd hate to see you starve.

It has more to do w/ improving the quality of life of the people who need help.

FYI: I'm a liberal conservative. To me, everything depends on the circumstances.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823160].message }}

GarrieWilson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Send them some money, then.

Nothing is stopping you.

I do, thanks.

-g

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823180].message }}

GarrieWilson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Good for you. Do you want to send them other people's money, too?

Better to send it to the needy than to corporations.

A few liberal/conservative thoughts...

Gun control is as pointless just as the war on drugs. To decrease violence we need to stop the cause of the violence, not the tool used in it.

Personal taxes should be lowered. If they are lowered more people might help others (more). Like they did before the government ballooned in the 70s/80.

Blah.

-g

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823221].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Gun control is as pointless just as the war on drugs. To decrease violence we need to stop the cause of the violence, not the tool used in it.

Personal taxes should be lowered. If they are lowered more people might help others (more). Like they did before the government ballooned in the 70s/80.

Actually they are very good points.
It doesn't matter if I'm dealing with my health, finances, or a broke car or motorcycle. I always look to the cause and work on eliminating it. You still have to fix the problem, but you can prevent it from turning into a problem again by fixing the cause.

When taxes where lower and the government wasn't coming up with new programs to "help" the people, more people DID voluntarily help others more. We had this novel thing called community where if someone lost their job and was down on their luck, you helped them. The big difference between a community helping someone and the govt. is a community gives the person the help they need to get back on their feet. The govt. gives the person the help they need to still need help.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823268].message }}

GarrieWilson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Who proposed sending money to corporations?

Da guberment.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826759].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Of course you did - because according to anyone that's not technically challenged, it's an obvious breach of the 4th amendment. It's illegal search and seizure. Once the current ruling is kicked up to a judge that is more technically educated, they'll realize that meta-data provides a lot more information about a person than just who they're calling. In fact many times the meta-data can provide more context about a person's behavior than the actual words being spoken.

Here's an article that explains it better than I can:

Phew, NSA Is Just Collecting Metadata. (You Should Still Worry) | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

If there are any tech-savy non-corrupt judges left, Snowden will be able to return to the United States.

Unfortunately, after one judge ruled that it was probably unconstitutional, another ruled it was legal.

Federal judge: NSA phone surveillance legal

Originally Posted by garyv

Most gun control arguments have to do with eliminating guns all together, or putting restrictions on caliber or amount of ammunition you can own. I don't think too many people would be against giving a gun owner a better education on how to control his weapon. Most gun owners I know have taken similar training anyway.

This isn't even close to true. Most gun regulations propose to limit magazine capacity and have to do with gun registration. I know of NO gun control legislation proposed to eliminate guns or pertain to caliber and ammo, other than magazine capacity.

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Yes, we certainly can't have the rabble determining its own destiny, can we?

Why it wouldn't be proper at all.

I don't care what the extremist riff raff does with their destiny, as long as they leave my destiny alone.

Originally Posted by LarryC

I am not here to defend militias (which can mean many things) but all of those links are from highly biased, establishment sources that are little more than government/corporate lackeys. By definition, those who are on the payroll of the ruling elite are opposed to "extremists" who want real change. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not what it appears. CNN is about the equivalent of Pravda in the old Soviet Union.

People who are against extremism have been fooled into thinking that the "center" is reasonable and just. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mild sounding drone of "news" outlets like CNN mask a sociopathic agenda. It's a good thing fewer and fewer people take them seriously or even listen to them at all.

I don't necessarily trust extremists either, but when you are constantly fed lies, the truth will sound bizarre and extreme.

Right ... if it ain't Fox Faux News, it ain't legit...

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Isn't that the same problem we have with restrictive, urban governments? Face the facts that they are ineffective and that you have both the right and the duty to protect yourself.

There is no benevolent government that is going to protect you. It is as much a fiction as the Tooth Fairy.

So, protect yourself. No one is stopping you. I don't expect law enforcement to be quick enough to protect me should I need it, but it's kind of civilized here where I live and I've lived this long without ever needing anyone's protection. We use guns to kill critters for the table, rifle matches and keeping predators from livestock. We don't mind reasonable gun control measures like smaller magazines. We're good enough shots that it doesn't take 20 rounds of ammo to hit the target.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826862].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

This isn't even close to true. Most gun regulations propose to limit magazine capacity and have to do with gun registration. I know of NO gun control legislation proposed to eliminate guns or pertain to caliber and ammo, other than magazine capacity.

I never said regulations - I said arguments. A lot of people who argue on the side of stricter regulations, usually form an argument around how we'd all be better off if guns were eliminated all together. Or if not eliminated, then restricted to muzzle loaded rifles. - Of course actual regulations are never proposed as such - because it's unconstitutional.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826909].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

I never said regulations - I said arguments. A lot of people who argue on the side of stricter regulations, usually form an argument around how we'd all be better off if guns were eliminated all together. Or if not eliminated, then restricted to muzzle loaded rifles. - Of course actual regulations are never proposed as such - because it's unconstitutional.

Well, maybe you've heard it, but I've never heard anyone suggest either.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8827118].message }}

garyv 12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, maybe you've heard it, but I've never heard anyone suggest either.

Fair enough.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8827886].message }}
Midnight Oil 12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, maybe you've heard it, but I've never heard anyone suggest either.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Assault Weapons ban 'Just...

Robin Kelly I'm all about banning guns - YouTube
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828042].message }}
- sbucciarel Banned 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Midnight Oil
  
  Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Assault Weapons ban 'Just the Beginning' - YouTube
  
  Robin Kelly I'm all about banning guns - YouTube
  
  I live in the country and have low bandwidth so I can't watch your videos, but how's that working for them anyway? Guns banned yet?
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828053].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

This isn't even close to true. Most gun regulations propose to limit magazine capacity and have to do with gun registration. I know of NO gun control legislation proposed to eliminate guns or pertain to caliber and ammo, other than magazine capacity.

The LEAD people doing the legislation you talk about have SAID they want to get rid of guns! And they are lowing guns to little more than MUSKETS!

I don't care what the extremist riff raff does with their destiny, as long as they leave my destiny alone.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!

So, protect yourself. No one is stopping you. I don't expect law enforcement to be quick enough to protect me should I need it, but it's kind of civilized here where I live and I've lived this long without ever needing anyone's protection. We use guns to kill critters for the table, rifle matches and keeping predators from livestock. We don't mind reasonable gun control measures like smaller magazines. We're good enough shots that it doesn't take 20 rounds of ammo to hit the target.

YEAH, I bet the police said the SAME in the hollywood bank robbery!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm1PEY8F4xE

DON'T believe that you are going to always be relaxed, have a clear shot, or be against only a couple people.

The police were only against TWO people, and had PLENTY of clear shots! I bet it started out relaxed! It ended up being not so great. They won because of numbers, a little stupidity on the part of one robber, backup, and JUST DUMB LUCK!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8827312].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

For the second amendment to be of any use against "tyranny", the army would have to be on the verge of rebellion itself and I simply don't think the US army careerists would have the motivations to do so.

Actually, there may be like 4 phases to this! First one? DONE! Second one? DONE! Third one? In process! Fourth? Started!

For all the bravado about tyranny, live and let die, an uprising would most likely be quickly wiped out.

YEAH! They said the SAME thing in the 18th and 19th centuries, and were WRONG!!!!! They probably said the same thing about switzerland, and were WRONG! They said it about ireland, which bugged them for HOW LONG!?!?!?!?

IMAGINE! ONE small meeting held in what sounds like a small shop. A group of people that actually sounded pretty small, though a document I found implies as many as 240 people. Up against THE major world power at the time. You would think they didn't have a chance. STILL, they did exactly what they wanted to do, and started a little country called the US, in about 7 years.

In the long run, the US will become a social democratic country like most of the countries in the EU and there's not much the right can do about it lest the GOP radically changes. This will via the democratic process, it's just a matter of culture and demographics.

You say that like it started with the GOP and they are the only ones! STILL, they said that in the 17th and 19th centuries(NOT the events I alluded to above, but STILL...)

STILL, we are NOT headed to where the EU is! We are headed WHERE the EU is ******HEADED******! Some of THEM see where they are going and like it no more than we do.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821672].message }}

socialentry

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

IMAGINE! ONE small meeting held in what sounds like a small shop. A group of people that actually sounded pretty small, though a document I found implies as many as 240 people. Up against THE major world power at the time. You would think they didn't have a chance. STILL, they did exactly what they wanted to do, and started a little country called the US, in about 7 years.

Steve

You forget a detail named France.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821836].message }}

seasoned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

You forget a detail named France.

NO, I DIDN'T! They came much later! When the British came, they apparently expected an easy time. Before you knew it, the area they wanted to raid was EMPTY! The places they then had to go to suddenly became very dangerous. They knew then and there they had a dangerous fight on their hands. Win or lose, they knew blood would be shed, INCLUDING THEIRS!

Funny how suddenly we are talking about EXACTLY the same things! Do you guys realize that wage taxes(Which in the US are LAUGHINGLY called INCOME taxes) and the fiat currency were effectively born 12/22/1913? YEP, it is 100 years and 7 days old. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822496].message }}

SteveJohnson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

For the second amendment to be of any use against "tyranny", the army would have to be on the verge of rebellion itself and I simply don't think the US army careerists would have the motivations to do so.

For all the bravado about tyranny, live and let die, an uprising would most likely be quickly wiped out.

In the long run, the US will become a social democratic country like most of the countries in the EU and there's not much the right can do about it lest the GOP radically changes. This will via the democratic process, it's just a matter of culture and demographics.

It's a matter of education, and the control of it.

The pendulum may have to swing further in the direction of a 'social democracy' before enough people wake up, but it will happen. When it does, it will happen the same way it did in the late 1700s: a minority of determined people will stand up against the tyranny of an overgrown government, and they will win.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821730].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Enfusia,

WELL SAID!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821372].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Well I don't care what anyone else does about gun control.................

as long as when someone bashes in my front door their idea of it immediately becomes an awareness that my hands don't shake when my finger is on the trigger. That's gun control.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821814].message }}

alistair

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Eventually the US, the last , best hope of the world

Did you pull that out of a Christmas cracker, or somewhere else?

No offence but you Americans sure do seem like a strange lot, from a foreigners point of view, and I speak only for myself, not for anybody else when I say that.

Very strange indeed.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822415].message }}

Hogre

12 years ago

Originally Posted by alistair

Did you pull that out of a Christmas cracker, or somewhere else?

No offence but you Americans sure do seem like a strange lot, from a foreigners point of view, and I speak only for myself, not for anybody else when I say that.

Very strange indeed.

Oh,come on...admit it.You're just jealous of their freedoms.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822474].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

To be honest, I don't much give a damn what you think.

No offense.

Not taking sides on this argument or comment, but I do really like this post. It's sooo me.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823167].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

So a quick google check brings up:

Gun Control - Just Facts

and that site tends to show increases in murder rates where gun control is implemented.

Yeah, and such a dependable source of information.

Quote:
"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010
Who the F*&k is little James and Reid with their outdated both in style and content website. You do know that just about any assmonkey with 1/4 of a brain can launch a "website" don't you?

Well, that website gives you some facts to start with, but name calling doesn't accomplish much does it.

Most of the comments here are opinion backed up by nothing except "I think."

Fair enough, but don't expect to be given much credibility except by those who think the same as you. So far, you haven't provided any facts to back up your opinions.

Marvin

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822683].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston

Well, that website gives you some facts to start with, but name calling doesn't accomplish much does it.

Most of the comments here are opinion backed up by nothing except "I think."

Fair enough, but don't expect to be given much credibility except by those who think the same as you. So far, you haven't provided any facts to back up your opinions.

Marvin

'Did I call you a name? I don't think so and what fact have I stated in this thread that needs a resource link? None. I haven't stated anything but opinion. You're the one who offered that website as "fact."

If you don't think that regulated means regulated, google federal gun laws and state gun laws and you'll see that guns are regulated.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822816].message }}

Marvin Johnston

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

'Did I call you a name? I don't think so and what fact have I stated in this thread that needs a resource link? None. I haven't stated anything but opinion. You're the one who offered that website as "fact."

If you don't think that regulated means regulated, google federal gun laws and state gun laws and you'll see that guns are regulated.

Re your first statement about name calling:

"Who the F*&k is little James and Reid with their outdated both in style and content website. You do know that just about any assmonkey with 1/4 of a brain can launch a "website" don't you?"

The biggest problem I see is people offering opinions based on hope as opposed to any evidence to support them. I have no problem with you offering out your opinions, but they will mean more if you provide some evidence they are not based on fiction.

This started out with a statement by you about gun control leading to less homicides, and I showed government data to show that isn't (always) true.

Believing something does not (by itself) make it true.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8822970].message }}

macgig

12 years ago

strict gun laws wont stop criminals and crazy people from killing others, because criminals and crazy people don't follow laws in the first place!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823129].message }}

Dan Riffle 12 years ago

Originally Posted by macgig

strict gun laws wont stop criminals and crazy people from killing others, because criminals and crazy people don't follow laws in the first place!

Don't bring reality into the discussion. You'll give everyone a headache.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823133].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Heysal is right.

I know some have a hard time figuring this out. HECK, I am now at a place that wants high availability and reducing CPOF is KEY! Armies, like the US has, germany has, etc... Have a CPOF! The israeli and swiss armies DON'T!

So what is the CPOF? Central Point Of Failure!!!!! With the military of most nations a couple strikes can affect THOUSANDS of potential enemies! It is why you always want to get things that can become airborn AT THEIR HOME! A lot is made of their being airborne, but the REAL deal is FREEDOM! Take out a strip needed to get planes up in the air, before any do, and you are free to do a lot of things. Wait a few minutes and you could have DOZENS of planes attacking you from every angle with NO hope to attack them. So that LANDING STRIP is a CPOF! Armed services generally send up more planes to assist, and may send fighters merely to support an otherwise defenseless cargo plane.

On apparently April 18, 1775, the british army hoped to find the US literally with its pants down! They hoped to find all unarmed, and just take the guns. They failed. The country had advanced notice and cleaned out the armory. They were almost like the 18th century IEDs! Even today, even the strongest armies fear even a PLATOON running into even ONE IED! Some could easily injure and/or maim dozens for many yards around. Some just jump up and blow up shooting shrapnel all around. And THAT is a simple non discriminatory device.

With Israel, or Switzerland, an armed aggravator can't really walk the streets, or open doors because EVERY point or hole may be a fatal trap for them. Maybe that is why NAZI Germany felt SO free with SO many areas but didn't try to attack Switzerland, and why the Palestinians and all have done such relatively little damage to Israel. Face it, if they were not all armed, the Palestinians would do what the NAZIs did during KristallNacht. Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And don't forget the new prepers motto..."When seconds count, the police are minutes away.". Of course, the military could be MONTHS away!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8823596].message }}

Hogre

12 years ago

Suzanne,you hit the nail on the head.

Militia - a fancy word that describes a self-righteous armed mob.

And, In times of turmoil, as I've witnessed a couple of times, makes the absolute scum float to the surface.

But yeah...keep romanticizing that idea.

Like you've all said - you haven't had the opportunity to see militia in action...and I sincerely hope you never do.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8824396].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Hogre

Suzanne,you hit the nail on the head.

Militia - a fancy word that describes a self-righteous armed mob.

And, In times of turmoil, as I've witnessed a couple of times, makes the absolute scum float to the surface.

But yeah...keep romanticizing that idea.

Like you've all said - you haven't had the opportunity to see militia in action...and I sincerely hope you never do.

Thanking a post like this is something that could be interpreted many ways. YEAH, some people with guns are heartless, bigoted, racist, expletives...., IDIOTS! That IS kind of our point!

And SOME people with guns are nice, kind, generous, maybe even HEROS, and certainly NOT dumb!

HECK, you can say a lot of bad things about police officers, BUT.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Ibktpt-h4

YEAH he works for the bomb squad, where they get advanced notice, intel, use special equipment, etc.... HERE, he had NON of that. Gee, the news makes such a big deal about him pulling back after being licked by flames. If he hadn't, he might have died, and likely wouldn't have helped anyone. Anyway, such heroism is not isolated to the police. Suppose this were a shootout, and they said he had to keep all his guns at the station.... The police do NOT always install humility and honor. Don't forget "Christopher Dorner"!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8824743].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Thanking a post like this is something that could be interpreted many ways. YEAH, some people with guns are heartless, bigoted, racist, expletives...., IDIOTS! That IS kind of our point!

And SOME people with guns are nice, kind, generous, maybe even HEROS, and certainly NOT dumb!

HECK, you can say a lot of bad things about police officers, BUT.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Ibktpt-h4

YEAH he works for the bomb squad, where they get advanced notice, intel, use special equipment, etc.... HERE, he had NON of that. Gee, the news makes such a big deal about him pulling back after being licked by flames. If he hadn't, he might have died, and likely wouldn't have helped anyone. Anyway, such heroism is not isolated to the police. Suppose this were a shootout, and they said he had to keep all his guns at the station.... The police do NOT always install humility and honor. Don't forget "Christopher Dorner"!

Steve

Yeah, I thanked his post. I'd just as soon keep my distance from the ignorant, gun toting fools who self describe themselves as a miliita ... self-regulated militia. They're little more than domestic terrorists with their own agenda. Likening them to an actual peace keeping force or an organization who could protect and defend this country is absurd.

I steer clear of extremists of any persuasion.

Anti-government extremist groups reach record levels, say experts - CNN.com

Hate and Extremism | Southern Poverty Law Center

The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America

US facing surge in rightwing extremist and militia groups | World news | The Guardian

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8825013].message }}

LarryC

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Yeah, I thanked his post. I'd just as soon keep my distance from the ignorant, gun toting fools who self describe themselves as a miliita ... self-regulated militia. They're little more than domestic terrorists with their own agenda. Likening them to an actual peace keeping force or an organization who could protect and defend this country is absurd.

I steer clear of extremists of any persuasion.

Anti-government extremist groups reach record levels, say experts - CNN.com

Hate and Extremism | Southern Poverty Law Center

The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America

US facing surge in rightwing extremist and militia groups | World news | The Guardian

I am not here to defend militias (which can mean many things) but all of those links are from highly biased, establishment sources that are little more than government/corporate lackeys. By definition, those who are on the payroll of the ruling elite are opposed to "extremists" who want real change. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not what it appears. CNN is about the equivalent of Pravda in the old Soviet Union.

People who are against extremism have been fooled into thinking that the "center" is reasonable and just. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mild sounding drone of "news" outlets like CNN mask a sociopathic agenda. It's a good thing fewer and fewer people take them seriously or even listen to them at all.

I don't necessarily trust extremists either, but when you are constantly fed lies, the truth will sound bizarre and extreme.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826729].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

I am not here to defend militias (which can mean many things) but all of those links are from highly biased, establishment sources that are little more than government/corporate lackeys. By definition, those who are on the payroll of the ruling elite are opposed to "extremists" who want real change. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not what it appears. CNN is about the equivalent of Pravda in the old Soviet Union.

People who are against extremism have been fooled into thinking that the "center" is reasonable and just. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mild sounding drone of "news" outlets like CNN mask a sociopathic agenda. It's a good thing fewer and fewer people take them seriously or even listen to them at all.

I don't necessarily trust extremists either, but when you are constantly fed lies, the truth will sound bizarre and extreme.

YEAH, so many laws are the opposite of what they appear to be. Ones claiming to reduce tax. cost, regulations, or scams generally try to INCREASE them or make money off of them. There are organizations that LOOK like they are PRO religion that are ANTI religion! Ones look PRO US but are ANTI US. And the southern poverty center really isn't trying to take care of poverty.

BTW since the SPC talks about things like "hate groups" so much, they should know there is a NEW "NAZI salute"! I learned about this yesterday, and people are being called on it. CAREFUL THOUGH! accuse anyone of it, and they may accuse YOU of the same. Most here have done it! You have to make similar motions to take care of things on your shoulders. Apparently it doesn't matter WHICH hand you use, or how far you go, and it is FAR less distinct than the seemingly otherwise useless NS currently on the SCP "hate map" page! As I indicated, it is a perhaps instinctive move, so you may have done it for DECADES without even thinking about it.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8827300].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

So only those who agree with your politics should have the right to bear arms.

I see.

Apparently, you don't see. I said, and I know that you can read and comprehend the English language, that I prefer to steer clear of radical, extremists groups with guns. I have not stated anywhere in this forum that they don't have the right to bear arms. I also steer clear of neighborhoods with a lot of gang and criminal activity. Until the right is taken away from them due to a felony conviction, all of the above have the right to bear arms, and the mentally ill as well, so you can sleep well knowing that everybody's rights are intact. :rolleyes:

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828720].message }}

David Braybrooke

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Apparently, you don't see. I said, and I know that you can read and comprehend the English language, that I prefer to steer clear of radical, extremists groups with guns. I have not stated anywhere in this forum that they don't have the right to bear arms. I also steer clear of neighborhoods with a lot of gang and criminal activity. Until the right is taken away from them due to a felony conviction, all of the above have the right to bear arms, and the mentally ill as well, so you can sleep well knowing that everybody's rights are intact. :rolleyes:

Agreed! Sbucciarel is speaking a lot of sense.

Thanks

Signature

"The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage." - Mark Russell

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828740].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Yeah, don't know WHAT to believe. SOME say they WERE, and ARE, wiretapping EVERYONE!

They have now ******ADMITTED****** that they have immediate access to ALL LATA data! This is the SAME data that the phone companies use to bill you! It is as simple as that! It was ruled *******LONG******* ago that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGAL to gain access to this with out the SITUATIONAL permission of a judge. A judge can't just give you license to all data. It had to be on a CASE BY CASE basis! Countries would earlier consider it an act of war to invade in that way.

GRANTED, it is short of a wiretap, but it is more significant than people like "rush limbaugh", of all people, make it out to seem. AND, if your number had say a <4 degree separation from a "party of interest", you could very likely have the police get into your private matters, WITH A SEARCH WARRANT. The LATA metadata may not be as invasive as a wiretap, but a wiretap would be hard for a computer to analyze, and the metadata is EASY!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826532].message }}

tradtke

12 years ago

I don't have a problem with all this gun rights crap. I'm a gun owner myself. Where I split from the gun rights activists is that I think there should be very strict training. The other thing is that people are so concerned with there rights, but all i hear about is gun rights. There are many other rights. Let me ask this. If your daughter is raped and the perpetrator is arrested BUT during court he was found not-guilty and released because some where along the line is rights were violated, which he used to discredit the charge. Would you support the right that prevented him from being charged just as much as the right to carry guns? People advocate against any type of training because that forces control on your gun control rights. FINE. lets say a man legally bought a gun, is legally carrying, but has no clue how to use it. He unintentionally fires a round that kills your child. would you still advocate against no training? People say they would rather live in a dangerous society without gun control than a safe one with it. Are those risks you are willing to take? I'm all for guns, but i'm also very PRO training laws. Sometimes we need to protect ourselves from ourselves. thats just how it is.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826684].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by tradtke

I don't have a problem with all this gun rights crap. I'm a gun owner myself. Where I split from the gun rights activists is that I think there should be very strict training. The other thing is that people are so concerned with there rights, but all i hear about is gun rights. There are many other rights. Let me ask this. If your daughter is raped and the perpetrator is arrested BUT during court he was found not-guilty and released because some where along the line is rights were violated, which he used to discredit the charge. Would you support the right that prevented him from being charged just as much as the right to carry guns? People advocate against any type of training because that forces control on your gun control rights. FINE. lets say a man legally bought a gun, is legally carrying, but has no clue how to use it. He unintentionally fires a round that kills your child. would you still advocate against no training? People say they would rather live in a dangerous society without gun control than a safe one with it. Are those risks you are willing to take? I'm all for guns, but i'm also very PRO training laws. Sometimes we need to protect ourselves from ourselves. thats just how it is.

Most gun control arguments have to do with eliminating guns all together, or putting restrictions on caliber or amount of ammunition you can own. I don't think too many people would be against giving a gun owner a better education on how to control his weapon. Most gun owners I know have taken similar training anyway.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826709].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Guy Reaches For Wallet, Ends Up Shooting Himself In The Butt

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8827452].message }}

Midnight Oil 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Guy Reaches For Wallet, Ends Up Shooting Himself In The Butt

Cleveland home invasion victim shoots, kills suspect
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8827989].message }}

Chris Worner

12 years ago

First they came.....

-Chris

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8827643].message }}

LarryC

12 years ago

People are taught by the media to react in a kneejerk way to labels like "militia," "extremist" or "terrorist" without thinking what these words really mean. It's similar to the way some people worried about "communists" in the 1950s. The media doesn't want you to think, it wants you to pigeonhole people and movements using simplistic labels. The funny thing is, there wouldn't even be a U.S. without militias

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828554].message }}

socialentry

Banned 12 years ago

But what if there was an FBI agent in every militia.

I think that would be a compromise that would make everyone happy.

Or maybe for every citizen militia there could be one government-backed militia.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828795].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

But what if there was an FBI agent in every militia.

I think that would be a compromise that would make everyone happy.

Or maybe for every citizen militia there could be one government-backed militia.

Ok as long as we can also put a State Liqueur Authority agent in every bar and at every party.
The govt. has two militias they back. Ones called the federal national guard and the other are state national guards.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828852].message }}

Midnight Oil 12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

This is a thread for gun nuts and other points of view are met with being accused of bigotry, etc.

Not sure exactly who all of these "gun nuts" are you're referring to in this thread, but you don't seem to mind throwing that term around when you don't agree with someone else in these discussions. Not to mention the many, many other descriptors you use.

I've seen many of your posts over time where you go into great detail describing these extremist gun nuts. You also frequently talk about not liking extremists from any side. I realize that you're trying to disengage from the thread. but I'm really curious how you would describe, and what you see as, the extremist anti-gun nuts.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828881].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Ok as long as we can also put a State Liqueur Authority agent in every bar and at every party.
The govt. has two militias they back. Ones called the federal national guard and the other are state national guards.

Did you hear the one about the FBI agent in a militia of sorts? He basically LIED to an INNOCENT bystander, PLEADED for the bystander to do something that would make an otherwise totally legally thing a FELONY, and LIED to the FBI! He claimed the INNOCENT person was associated with the group they didn't like, and that he INTENTIONALLY broke the law.

The result? They invaded his property and killed his DOG! HIS DOG!!!!!!!! OH YEAH, they ALSO killed his son and his wife! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828938].message }}

Mark Singletary

12 years ago

I always liked this simple explanation about the role of government:

Government can't do anything that I as an individual citizen can't do. That's because I can't give someone the right to do something I don't have the right to do. You know the old for the people by the people thing?

So for example I can defend my family from criminals or from an invading enemy and can pass on part of that right to the government.

But I can't go to your house and hold a gun to your head and say give me money to pay for my mother's surgery, to give to my son who is unemployed and needs financial help, to pay for my daughter's education, or because my friend has nothing to eat. Therefore neither can they.

Simple concept and if you think it through it may help you realize how far we've gone astray.

Mark

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828950].message }}

socialentry

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

I always liked this simple explanation about the role of government:

Government can't do anything that I as an individual citizen can't do. That's because I can't give someone the right to do something I don't have the right to do. You know the old for the people by the people thing?

So for example I can defend my family from criminals or from an invading enemy and can pass on part of that right to the government.

But I can't go to your house and hold a gun to your head and say give me money to pay for my mother's surgery, to give to my son who is unemployed and needs financial help, to pay for my daughter's education, or because my friend has nothing to eat. Therefore neither can they.

Simple concept and if you think it through it may help you realize how far we've gone astray.

Mark

But what if your mission was to nuke China. Can you nuke China instead of the government.

I guess if you were a really really really motivated engineer, you could do it, but it would be hard and you would likely only get one shot.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828956].message }}

Mark Singletary

12 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

But what if your mission was to nuke China. Can you nuke China instead of the government.

I guess if you were a really really really motivated engineer, you could do it, but it would be hard and you would likely only get one shot.

Yes I believe that you could attack China, as an individual, to defend your country, family, etc. We have that right individually.

However, in the interest of common sense, we have given the government part of our right. They pool our resources and help us to defend ourselves. They provide for the common defense.

10 regular citizens can join together and defend their homes. 10 regular citizens can't join together and decide that they are going to take money from you to pay someone else's medical bills.

What does this have to do with gun control? The concept is the same.

Also the thinking that when John Q. Policeman/Soldier is on duty he's a good upstanding citizen that we rely on to help protect our freedoms, but after work if he's part of a militia he's a right wing crazed extremist nut is a little nutty in and of itself.

Mark

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8828983].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

But what if your mission was to nuke China. Can you nuke China instead of the government.

I guess if you were a really really really motivated engineer, you could do it, but it would be hard and you would likely only get one shot.

You WOULDN'T get one shot! You would get potentially 330MLLION+ shots! If I used YOUR reasoning, the GOVERNMENT would be relegated to NOTHING because, in the absence of private assistance, the government wouldn't exist. It is called public because it is supposed to be affiliated with many PRIVATE entities. That is where the BY the people comes in.

Anyway, nukes are ONLY viable as a LAST RESORT on a DISTANT and ISOLATED enemy!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8829018].message }}

Interesting Look At Gun Control

Trending Topics

Is that me or is Christmas getting sadder as time goes by?

Running an Online Store and Dealing with Spammy Backlinks - Best Strategies to Remove Them

What are you thankful for in 2025...

Not sure how I should price my new product for existing members...any suggestions?

Greeting