http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23688073
C'mon. I mean---fuck. It wont change...right? This shit...wont be overturned, right? THeres no fucking way....right?
RIGHT!?
Never. What would they do? All of a sudden, gun owners would become criminals if they didnt turn over their firearms? Holy fuck....this shit is going to get laughed out of court.....
.....I hope.
Last edited by The Diabolical Mr. Lieman; March 18th, 2008 at 02:37 PM.
Link's not working...
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Originally Posted by Lizard
Working now....thanks.
They should slowly phase them completely out in a slow, progressive manner. I'm sick of hearing about gun related violence and don't really understand the reasoning behind owning a gun for insurrectionist purposes. It doesn't make sense unless the militia your a part of has an air force, tanks, and a naval fleet of carriers. We shouldn't have the freedom to carry extremely deadly weapons at the cost of public safety, and begin to recognize that it was a the very different world that the original forefather's lived in when they framed the constitution in the first place.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
It's HIGHLY unlikely that a majority conservative Supreme Court would rule to deny the right to bear arms.
What this fight really pertains to is the issue of partial bans - whether or not a jurisdiction has the right to ban certain types of guns. Well, this has been determined to be legal, hence bans on automatic weapons and such. However, in this case, D.C.'s ban on handguns is being challenged as violating the second amendment. That is why the 2nd amendment as a whole must now be examined.
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. But the comments made by the justices in the article suggest that we don't have much of anything to worry about.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
The reason for insurrectionist purposes? I mean--its obviously silly to sit here and say that the reason I have guns in my house is because Im worried about a New World Order, or some Police State kinda thing or some shit...that would be a lie. I own one, because I want to reserve the right to blow whoever's head off that comes into my house one night, or anyone who thinks theyre going to take anything or anyone from my house.
Nah. In the war we lost, and the one were losing, the "baddies" didnt and dont have air forces, tanks and naval fleets.It doesn't make sense unless the militia your a part of has an air force, tanks, and a naval fleet of carriers.
Why not? Theyre there in most part as defense. Sure, there are episodes where there is gun related violence in homes. Just like there are episodes where when we drive cars, we smash into others and kill them. We should have the RIGHT to defend ourselves from the people who will get them illegally.We shouldn't have the freedom to carry extremely deadly weapons at the cost of public safety
Its much worse, more violent, thousands of tons more dangerous, and with a government that is trying to legally spy on us, and trying to gain authority to break down our doors and arrest us without warrants., and begin to recognize that it was a the very different world that the original forefather's lived in when they framed the constitution in the first place.
Agreed. ANd while I blew my top with the assault weapon ban years ago, I really could think of no real reason to keep them...
The handgun bad is far different, and just terrible.
I'm arguing against the point people raise citing that a reason for handguns, or any private gun ownership for that manner, is to be able to form militia and repel government. They cite this as a constitutional right, even though common sense dictates that handguns aren't going to overturn current government. The explicit purpose of a gun is to kill things. That's it. That to me is a bigger risk to public safety than something with dual purpose and a better cost/benefit ratio, like vehicles. All guns seem to do on average is give rise to criminal enterprise, not self defense. So if on average something is harming public safety more often than protecting it we should take progressive steps to reduce and even eliminate it. Any other stance is based on selfishness.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Eh, but maybe not though.
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm
An excerpt:
A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S
Also: The simple fact is that those areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun restrictions and highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime rates.
There are stats to provide that guns have killed more Americans than diseases, WW2 and Viet Nam together in the 20th century. There is evidence that it is the leading cause of death amongst black and Hispanic youths. But we're talking legally, here. THis may seem racist, and harsh even, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that when we are talking about black and Hispanic youths, we are talking about a lot of illegal firearms.
Banning guns wont change those figures, IMO.
I think that the gradual decline of guns will certainly change the severity of crimes in the private sector especially if enforced federally, that's really what I'm pushing for unless we are talking about the muskets of old. I'd be for replacing guns in the private sector with single shot muskets, that could certainly deter crime within reason, but in terms of warfare and law enforcement I am for the most lethal type of guns possible. I don't think we all have to adhere to the moral degredation of the criminal element within our society and accept the severity of their actions as the neccessary evil of so called "cultures of violence in racial minorities". The systematic, slow reduction of firearms won't destroy crime rates, rather curtail some of the harsher consequences. In my opinion de-escalation is the way to go if we are going to continue to continue to pursue an objective moral authority in our country.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Hundreds of people are killed each year using knives, bats, clubs, ropes, scissors.
Fact is, you can NOT legislate morality. Evil people do evil things with every day objects.
Very few firearm related crimes are committed with legally owned firearms.
Fact is, criminals commit crimes and law abiding citizens do not. Your suggestion is to take away law abiding citizens ability to curtail, prevent, or respond to crimes committed by CRIMINALS.
Concealed carry should be the law of the land. Criminals love an un-armed target.
R
3 Member(s) thanked for this post
Firearms are the leading cause of homicide in the country, and they have no dual purpose, they don't carry any other benefit than point and kill, so it's unfair to relate them to dual purpose items; like shovels, scissors, vehicles, etc. Objective morality is legislated all the time by weighing private interests with public good. The arguement that only criminals use guns is circulatory. Of course only criminals use guns in an illegal manner, otherwise they wouldn't be criminals, and we shouldn't roll over on our bellies and merely be reactive to criminal gun abuse by arming everyone. Escalation doesn't curtail crime, all it leads to is more escalation; more pilfering of our moral duty for the private interest.
I'm not suggesting ripping guns suddenly and violently from citizens either. History shows us that these things so culturally entrenched in our society need to be erradicated gradually from legislation on a federal level, and gun concealment laws are the first step. If you think about it in the long term it's the only logical step away from handing off another gun culture to our next generation; the slow systematic reduction of deadly firearms for private use. We don't have to tolerate the severity of criminal actions. Things can change, and not in favor of bad behavior or irresponsibility.
Last edited by CPL CHUD; March 19th, 2008 at 12:15 PM.
Quote: Firearms are the leading cause of homicide in the country.
Here is the first flaw in your theory. PEOPLE are the leading cause of homicide in this country, or any other country for that matter. Guns may (I highly doubt) the leading tool used in homicide, but the evil PEOPLE are the cause.
Quote: and they have no dual purpose.
Here is the second flaw in your theory. My guns provide me with entertainment in the form of collecting them, trading them, using them for hunting, target practice, and competitions of skill in my command over them. My guns provide me with security and protection from evil people wishing to do evil things against me and my family. Along with that security comes peace of mind.
Quote:The argument that only criminals use guns is circulatory. Of course only criminals use guns in an illegal manner, otherwise they wouldn't be criminals.
Again, flawed thinking. Surely you are not suggesting that a gun crime is the first crime of all criminals, are you? Most crimes involving guns are crimes being committed while USING a gun, i.e. robbery, murder, assault, etc. The gun is mearly a tool of that crime. Unless they are a prior felon, the simple possession of the gun is not a crime.
Quote: I'm not suggesting ripping guns suddenly and violently from citizens either. History shows us that these things so culturally entrenched in our society need to be erradicated gradually from legislation on a federal level.
Your suggestion is a direct assault and attack on the constitution's second amendment. This kind of thinking is favored by the likes of Hitler and Stalin (sp?) and smacks of the mindset "An unarmed peasant is easiest to control".
Quote: and gun concealment laws are the first step.
On this we agree, no right thinking criminal is going to attempt to attack someone they KNOW is armed. Criminals are cowards by nature in my experience and will simply move on to the "easier target".
Answer this question truthfully please. If your intent is to do me harm and you posses the knowledge that two things are true, 1. I am armed and 2. I have no qualms about using that weapon to stop you from doing harm to me, will you proceed or move on to a easier target?
Quote: Things can change, and not in favor of bad behavior or irresponsibility.
Your entire argument is in the opposite direction of that statement. You suggest that law abiding citizens have their legal firearms removed in the misguided hope that somehow criminals will also not keep firearms. If your suggestion was/is to punish those who use firearms to commit crimes in the most sever manner possible, then we will stand shoulder to shoulder in that fight.
Since your argument is to limit my ability to defend myself and family, we will not agree on this matter.
Another question if I may.
When was the first, last, or any other time you have heard of a criminal saying " I knew I would get caught, but I did it anyway." ?
Same question again, but replace "Caught" with "shot".
R
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
While I certainly agree with the logic, where does this leave the individual? I can swallow increased regulation in regard to gun ownership - better registration, mandated education, more thorough background checks - but, as an individual with an interest in and need for the most absolute means of protection reasonably available, a gun-free society does not appeal to me whatsoever. Is that selfish? By it's very nature. That does not make it any less valid, however.
There are steps we can take to reduce this crime that do not require stripping upstanding citizens of their firearms and replacing them will far less suitable means of protection.
I can tell you, first hand, that the criminal element is not so easily scared off by a knife or a bat. In fact, these things are likely to be taken and used against the victim. A gun typically guarantees a very different outcome without even needing to be fired. How does a gun-free society benefit the individual? We cannot only consider the big picture, here.
Last edited by Athena; March 19th, 2008 at 02:46 PM.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
3 Member(s) thanked for this post
How can ANYONE, who claims to have ANY KIND of morality support gun bans? Think about it. By banning guns these "moral" people are telling innocent individuals that their life is not worth the potential cost of a bullet. They are taking away the ability of the innocent to protect themselves against the criminals. What is an individual to do when approached by a criminal that is either taller, stronger, faster, smarter, has them outnumbered, or is more adept at fighting than themselves? The gun is a great equalizer. If anything, it allows those less-able to protect themselves, because of the above-mentioned deficiencies, the opportunity to walk away from the altercation alive, and, quite possibly, unhurt.
The person that claims the individual has no right to protect themselves, with a gun, against one which would do them harm is morally defunct in every way. They are so intent on looking at the easy outcome (i.e. no guns means that there will possibly be less severe outcomes to crimes) that they fail to realize the more serious implications of what they are suggesting (those they are claiming they are trying to protect will become even easier to target and hurt).
Last edited by TXChris; March 19th, 2008 at 02:24 PM.
3 Member(s) thanked for this post
I can tell you first hand that a gun in inexperienced hands is just as likely to be removed and used against its bearer and likely to have consequences of a more dire nature.
Any tool in the hands of a novice is less effective than intended, skill development is so often overlooked.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
I'm not calling for crime to cease, or homicide to cease, or burglary to cease, rather the potential severity of gun abuse to cease. This can only be achieved via the gradual decline of guns permited into the private sector. Entertainment value doesn't outweigh public safety or negate the expressed purpose of guns made to inflict severe damage to human health. When's the last time somebody walked into a bank with a knife and killed a dozen people? Are school shootings worth private entertainment? They are if you've got a short term Peter Pan mentality.
Demonstrate your "skills" with a BB gun. They can even make them in multicolors with celebrity and cartoon faces on the side so it'll be more fun to trade. The security to your family can be replaced via musket, and there is not one nonskewed statistic I can find that says that having a gun makes your house more secure, that account for variable factors, that don't use backwards reasoning. Lotts been proven to be a phoney yet every pro-gun advocate continues to lean on his "research" because it justifies their own mentality. The only thing guns have been proven to do is create escalation and kill more people.
Bringing it to the logical outcome of what your line of thinking indicates and it would be perfectly suitable for everyone to own grenade launchers, flame throwers, tanks. After all, following your reasoning, what else would provide more security, or entertainment than shit that really goes "boom". Obviously we need to move past selfishness and focus on long term despite some of the difficulties presented short term. Give up your toys. It's going to sting a little for some, but it's for the better.
The loopy thinking of pro-gun advocates kills me. Everyone needs a gun because everyone has a gun, because we all need a gun, because other people have guns, because.....just stop. We need to grow up sometime and take a serious look at the fact that we have the same crime rate as other countries relative to us but higher homicide rates. So if everyone has a gun because everyone needs a gun because criminals have guns, well it ain't doing anything to curtail violence, just up the ante of the outcome.
Last edited by CPL CHUD; March 20th, 2008 at 08:20 AM.
Which is why I advocate mandated education.
That being said...No, a gun is not *as* likely as a knife or a bat to be removed and used against a victim. What criminal is going to take that chance? Relatively few. You have to get AWFULLY close to a gun to wrangle it away. I lived in the hood for 4 years. Had people scoff when I pulled knives; had people totally disregard my 120lb Rott/G. Shepherd. Never had that experience with my gun. And, granted, my experience is not standard (as we established in that other thread, last time you were trespassing in Three Things)...but I'd have no problem finding statistics to back me up. I know this because I've seen them. I'll hunt them down, if you so require.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
What you are failing to comprehend is that making guns illegal will NOT get them out of the hands of criminals. You will only, somewhat effectively, remove guns from law-abiding citizens. What good does that do anyone? Think about it.
Your thinking is akin to living in a fairy tale world. It just is not going to happen. Even taking away most of an individual's civil liberties in order to give police the power to do what they want, when they want, and at any costs to keep illegal guns out of everyone's hands will still only succeed in making sure the populace is unarmed against the criminals. Japan is a perfect example. Not only do they have gun bans in place, but they ALSO have a society where civil liberties are damn near non-existent. Does that keep the guns out of the criminals hands? Not at all. It just keeps most guns out of the law-abiding citizen's hands. Personally, I would rather be given the opportunity to use a gun to protect myself, than be at the mercy of criminals who have guns.
BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
Funny how my fairy tale adheres so readily to reality. They have the strictest laws and statisticaly the lowest gun related homicides in the known world. So the criminals are being stopped by strict gun control. There have been some years in Japan where the bulk of gun related deaths paled in comparison to a single day of gun related homicide in the U.S.; which just happends to have some of the laxest gun control policies of all of modern nations. See the correlation yet? Japan is considered one of the safest countries in the world!
Your "perfect" example completely proves my point that pro-gun advocates are generally talking out of their asspipes.
Again, from my perspective, this has NOTHING to do with criminals having guns. The fact of the matter is, criminals don't require a gun to harm me. Some criminals require no weapon of any kind. A gun-free society severely compromises my ability to protect myself from harm.
Luckily, I don't have to worry about my right to own a gun being revoked within this lifetime.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
You might want to tone down the obnoxiousness of your laughter there while reading what I wrote once again, as the only person speaking out of their "asspipe," it would seem, is you. After all, you're the one who refused to read my post in entirety. I'm just saying is all. ;)
Now, to go over this ONCE AGAIN for those of you not listening...
Not only do they have a gun ban but they ALSO have VERY limited civil liberties. A gun ban, on its own would NEVER get the kind of results you are looking for. The fact is, the Japanese government is pretty much able to do as they want, when they want, no questions asked. Do you see what I'm saying here yet, or are you still too busy being ignorant and childish? It's not just the gun ban, but it also is the extreme ability of the government to ignore any civil liberties that the populace should have. I sure as hell am not willing to give up my liberties, guaranteed by the Constitution, just because some idiot who is so short-sighted that he cannot clearly see the results of his ridiculous beyond merely A+B=C. Remember, A+B does not only equal C. It also equals D, E, F, and G, further down the road.
Pro-Freedom people are not always pro-gun, they're just pro-freedom.
Fascists that think if its important it'll be regulated for them are thinking through their asspipes.
Take some responsibility people, there are guns in the world. Don't be an asshole and you may never see one. Try paying attention to your environment and being absent from situations before the guns are drawn if you want to be safe. Be faster and better with yours if you want to be free.
And now they want to ban toy guns and keep the fucking real ones! ~ George Carlin
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Sorry I'm still giggling about your Japan example. You're still trying to pull shit out of thin air and hope people just as morally wrong and misinformed as you applaud.
So NOW it's about civil rights.
Personal liberty should not outweigh public endangerment, and this always plays a great part in legislation. The biggest reason we are even able to carry weapons today is not because of civil liberty. It's born out of the fear our founding fathers had of a standing army. Their solution to the defense of our nation was by creating highly organized militias with people who had their own weapons, thus resolving the fear of a standing army, while making public security against foreign invasion a commonly shared interest. However, they later realized that as the country grew they needed a standing army, thus abolishing the need for militias. With the abolishment of militias came the abolishment for citizens to have the right to bear arms. They never wanted citizens to uprise, but didn't see bearing arms as that big of a deal. It was an unanticipated epidemic. You can't win them all. If you look at history, when this very event happened, whenever a disorganized militia rose up against the government they were quick to point out that they were not protected under the constitution. The idea of anarchy rattled them. So the "right" to bear arms is an outdated idea which continues to generate unanticipated violence and disruption in the public forum, exactly the opposite of its original intent. Guns weren't even overly effective at killing people back when the 2nd Amendment was solidified and they weren't nearly as cheap as they are today after the Industrial Revolution. Gun enthusiasts however constantly try to rewrite history, like people who point at "God" on dollar bills and say that the founding fathers were religious; they overlook these glaring contradictions to their stance because they lack any historical perspective, kind of like people who think the civil war wasn't primarily about slavery.
Last edited by CPL CHUD; March 20th, 2008 at 04:51 PM.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
You make an eloquent point Chud but I don't buy it. Public endangerment isn't coming from guns, its coming from people.
People with guns, people with pharmaceutical companies, people with screwdrivers and bad attitudes.
The one undeniable statistic about all types of murder is there are people involved.
And now they want to ban toy guns and keep the fucking real ones! ~ George Carlin
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
You just don't get it, do you? I honestly just do not get how someone can possibly be so blind. The Japanese do not enjoy the same civil liberties that we do. Hell, what they are "allowed" by their government is not even close to what we, as Americans, enjoy. Without this government-controlled clamp on their lives their gun ban wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. The government has to control damn near everything about their society in order to make their gun ban "work." Let me say that again, just to make sure you are paying attention: They HAVE to control DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING about their society in order to make their gun ban "work." It's completely asinine to suggest that any entity have that much control over an individual's life. You, who suggest that slavery is so bad, seem to be perfectly OK with our government ruling as master over the populace.
The right to bear arms is a lot deeper than your misguided easy-to-swallow interpretation of it shows. It is not a civil liberty, no, but it's purpose is an important one, which is to allow one to PROTECT ONE'S OWN civil liberties. The government cannot always be expected to protect an individual's liberties, as has been shown throughout history. Whether that protection is against a standing army, the government, or the criminal next door makes no difference. A person's ability to protect oneself should always supersede government's control over one's life. Nobody, no entity, should EVER stand in the way of a person protecting oneself and family. Period. To believe otherwise is showing a complete lack of morality and is 100% unethical.
Last edited by TXChris; March 20th, 2008 at 05:10 PM.
Exactly! And that's the bulk of our problem with our own government. It spends too much time putting band-aids on problems and trying to outlaw the tools used. Instead, the time and effort should be spent on attacking the root of the problem...the people who are committing the crimes. Education and deterrence work a hell of a lot better than making crime easier to commit by unarming innocent, law-abiding people.
Unfortunately, those who are all for gun bans cannot seem to get past the correlation, and that's what they base their "logic" on. Whatever happened to fixing the causation? The only way to fix a problem is to attack its cause. And guns do not CAUSE crime. As was stated earlier in the thread, guns are merely tools used by criminals in the process of committing a crime AND by innocent individuals as protection against that crime.
To me its totally an issue of mental health and stability. Failing to address the generations of dysfunction the only thing left to do is take away all sharp objects.
And now they want to ban toy guns and keep the fucking real ones! ~ George Carlin
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Well, here we see the typical response.
Pretty much what I always get from those who would attempt to limit others actions because they, and only they, know what is best for everyone.
Can't support your position without resorting to ad-hominem attacks.
Mom taught me to never argue with an idiot, for the casual observer may become confused as to who the real idiot is.
Enjoy your discussion.
R
But what makes them dangerous? Nobody's ever climbed up on a bell tower and picked off twelve people with a screw driver.
We can't "fix" people and I don't think anybody is suggesting that. We aren't looking for an utopian society. The realistic moral imperative is simply to lessen the damage that criminals can do, and our best example that is works is over the pond. For the people that spooge over statistics all you have to know is that the higher the percentage of households carrying guns, the higher the amount of intentional deaths caused by guns, the higher percentage of crime related deaths period, and America sits on the top of the heap. Crime rates are inconsequential, even countries with the nearly the same crime rates as our own. For everyone sober enough to read this, the correlation should be clear.
We aren't all more sick and barbaric than everyone else. We are more civilized than we have been in the history of the known world. The difference is now we give every simpleton on the street the option to merely point, click, and kill with ease.
Chris firmly believes the government is out to get us. He thinks politicians are so evil that they are practicaly alien. They sit there contriving huge ass conspiracies about how to fuck us over, and even if his conspiracy theories are internally flawed, but it doesn't matter, because that scary man behind the curtain is going to fuck your sister raw, and that handgun in your closet is your only line of defense against it. For people that aren't that paranoid and realize that we got to stop the cycle of violence and escalation sometime the gradual reduction of guns coupled with the increase of gun restrictions should be obvious. Taking away the abillity to kill each other dead with ease is not going to crush the Liberty Bell.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks