by Englishman 81 Replies latest jw friends
bigboi: First, the capability of the military is such nowadays that no militia of ordinary citizens can hope to resist it.
Absolutely unfounded statement. I encourage you to prove this statement. We need not discuss measures such as thermonuclear war against their own citizens, because it would not happen. Urban warfare can be waged quite admirably by a handful of insurgents who have little left to live for.
Witness, Iraq.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Bigboi, the argument that "there's no need for such-and-such type weapon" just doesn't work. Ever since the National Firearms Act of 1934* was passed, there have been only two instances of legally owned Class 3 firearms being used in a crime.
That's the best gun control law on the books, and I say that in all seriousness.
We have enough gun laws. Waiting periods, background checks, outright bans in homicide-free Washington DC and New York; and for a long time we had extremely effective restrictions on magazine capacity and such deadly add-ons as pistol grips and collapsible stocks. The AR-15 came with a fixed stock. Under the now-dead "Assault Weapons Ban" it would have been illegal to attach a collapsible stock. Yeah. What a crime that would be!
Sometimes I have to question the true agenda of the gun-control side of the debate. Their entire jihad is aimed at disarming legal gun owners.
Mike.
so what about the right of IRAN to bear arms (Nukes)?
so what about the right of IRAN to bear arms (Nukes)?
Interesting question. I'd like to hear your answer. Should they be allowed to have nukes? Mike.
Well, they did sign the non-prolifiration treaty right?
But if they pull out of that, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have nukes, do you?
I like the way you are reasoning, Bas. Follow that line of thought. Why do they need them? From their perspective, are we the bad guys? Of course! And the bad guys have them, right? So why shouldn't they also have them?
Similarly, if you outlaw weapons only the outlaws will have them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519561/posts
40 Reasons For Gun Control
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
I agree, avishai. How is this anti-gun propaganda any different from the same kind of circular reasoning and falsely based justification that the WTS is using to warp people's thoughts.
Let's examine some arguments on this thread:
So the amendment is about militias not private gun ownership for ownership's sake.
No basis for the statement. Just stated. Guns privately owned by the citizens of Boston and other cities in the colonies were stripped from them by the redcoats. After the guns were taken from the private citizens (bankers, magistrates, tradesmen of all stripes) in Boston, their city was quarantined. Anyone who wanted to leave had their goods stripped from them as penalty.
The amendment was about private ownership and maintenance of the weapons, so that at any time militias of the people could be formed. Militias were seen as, and were Constitutionally stated to be, NECESSARY to the security of a free state.
Here's another gem:
Despite the impression some people abroad may have, the Second Amendment is not (at least as currently interpreted) a free-for-all that prevents any restrictions on gun ownership.
Again, no basis whatsoever. Conjectured. The words "shall not be infringed" mean something. Look up the word "infringed." It absolutely is a free-for-all on gun ownership, for anyone who is part of "the people," that is anyone who has a vested interest in protecting his or her interests or those of his or her fellow.
Main Entry: en·croach
Pronunciation: in-'krOch, en- Function: intransitive verbEtymology: Middle English encrochen to get, seize, from Middle French encrochier, from Old French, from en- + croc, croche hook -- more at CROCHET
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
That is the basic meaning of infringe. That is exactly what restrictions on ownership are, an encroachment. Now registration is not discussed in the Constitution at all. I would have no problem with registration and tracking of ownership of any firearms, as long as no relationship exists of the government permitting the ownership. Any such permitting of ownership can be revoked at the government's pleasure, thus removing the protections the Amendment ostensibly afforded the populace against their government.
If the guns can only be owned by those vetted by the government, the only ones who will own them will be those who are believed by the government to be loyalists.
Most importantly, the Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." With respect to gun ownership, the right is directly stated to be that of the people.
As with freedom of speech, no one should be compelled to own a firearm. As with freedom of speech, no one may be rightly compelled to divest themselves of their arms, either.
I can't understand why people who have done so little research on the founding principles and history behind the Amendments step all over the memory of those who actually died and those who risked their lives thinking we would always believe that "We the people" could win against our government. Statements I have read repeatedly, here and elsewhere, prove that some of you know you have no control over this beast you have not kept tamed.
Why not, instead, take a deep breath and be thankful for those who are still willing to risk their lives to make sure your beast thinks before biting the hand that voted for it.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
I live a very peaceful life....never give anyone any reason to rumble and live in a demographically "safe" part of the US. Our area is so "safe" that if needed police response is at least 30 minutes away because of staffing.
I have been drawn on, in earnest, twice. Of my relatives...I list 2 homicide victims (both high profile crimes in Florida), a armed-robbery, and more than one break in and burglary plus a couple of boosted cars.
I have been tailed in traffic by maniacs... worked in high crime areas. Been followed in city garages... That "artificial confidence" stuff...yea it works!
I own and carry firearms... have lived in CCW states and states with liberal non-CCW regulations. Both times I ran into an armed assailant MY TRAINING allowed me to talk rather than shoot my way out of the situation. Of my crime victim relations, the murder victims were un-armed and un trained... the robbery victim was un-armed and trained and he talked his way out and managed to assist in the arrest of the perp after letting him leave the scene.
My only beef about Amendment 2 is it cant regulate stupid. Stupid folks will own guns, cars, make babies, by beer and make risky business out of just about any activity you could name. OH well...the burdens of life in a free society.
If the goverment if gets outta hand or the US gets invaded it wont be the guns that make a difference... Take a head count of all the EX-military folks you know... Those folks know a little about tactics, logistics and territory and how to fight it out with a well trained force using limited equipment and weapons. Under the guidance of those EX DOD folks you can bet that Grandads old shotgun or .22 will get a fresh lease on life in the hand of a well trained "militia" insurgent.
Randy Quaid in "Independence Day"? the movie is far fetched but the concept portrayed in his part isnt. "Red Dawn" a pipe dream...dont bet on it.
~Hill
~Hill
Simon:
We all know Braveheart must have been nonsense ... everyone knows the scotts have never won anything
(where's Little Toe?)
We've won the Grand Slam in the Five Nations Rugby, as well as some Scotland - England Football matches
As for armed conflict, it seems the English were all too willing to remove our rights, and this continues to this day. The laws came in by stealth and propaganda. For that reason I believe the Americans have every right to be suspicious. I am.
Here our best bet it to learn a Martial Art - those are still legal. Anything else would likely get us locked up.
IMHO it ups the ante, if a burgular or any other deviant has to consider an additional risk of the householder being armed. I'm all for it.
