Gun control after Sept. 11th

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Lyt
Sojourner
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Gun control after Sept. 11th

Postby Lyt » Sun Nov 04, 2001 9:42 am

Found this on the Foxnews.com website. Go buy a gun.

-Lyt

"I think all women oughta carry a cell phone and a three-fifty-seven. Loaded."


So declares a woman interviewed by The New Republic's Michelle Cottle.

That statement seems to sum up the post-Sept. 11 attitude toward gun control. Things were already tough for the gun-control movement. Convinced that Al Gore's strong anti-gun stance had cost the Democratic Party the 2000 election, the Democratic Leadership Council had already called for a softer line on gun control. Bill Clinton and former White House spokesman Joe Lockhart had pronounced Gore's stance a mistake. Meanwhile, product-liability suits brought against gun manufacturers were failing miserably in courts from New York to California.

These, however, were all tactical defeats. The gun-control movement could still boast the loyalty of most of the media; favorable treatment from the courts on Second Amendment cases; the strong support of women; and a new book by a celebrated historian that claimed guns weren't important to the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Most important of all, the movement resonated with the Rosie O' Donnell culture of "niceness" that assumed that the best way to avoid harm was to be harmless.

But now all of this has changed. Though gun-control groups have tried to capitalize on the Sept. 11 attacks, those attempts have misfired. Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center tried to claim that Barrett Firearms had sold .50 caliber sniper rifles to Usama bin Laden. Not many in the media bought this, which was a good thing since it turned out that those rifles had actually been sold to the United States Government.

Even lamer was the claim that the Sept. 11 attacks were an argument for closing the (nonexistent) "gun show loophole." This claim, made first in a Brady Campaign press release and then in a suspiciously similar op-ed bearing the byline of former Clinton Administration official Eric Holder, just plain flopped. Nobody could be persuaded that Usama bin Laden’s boys would have trouble laying their hands on an AK-47, regardless of what rules govern gun shows.

The much-touted book by Michael Bellesiles, Arming America—which claimed the framers of the Constitution must not have intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to own guns because private gun ownership was exceedingly rare at the time — also lost most of its resonance when legal historians and reporters at the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, and National Review concluded that it was based on false, and possibly fraudulent, evidence.

Bellesiles’ employer, Emory University, says that a prima facie case of academic misconduct has been made out, and is requiring him to explain himself.

Nor have the courts been much help. On Oct. 16, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released its opinion in the case of United States v. Emerson , holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun. The opinion is long, scholarly, and careful in its dissection of flawed reasoning in earlier decisions by other courts.

As a result, according to Michael Barone, "It will now be very hard–I would say impossible–for any intellectually honest judge to rule that the Second Amendment means nothing."

These are all serious defeats, and would have left the gun-control movement reeling all by themselves. But it is the change in the culture since Sept. 11 that has probably been the most damaging to the gun control movement’s project of removing guns from the hands of ordinary Americans.

Properly understood, the gun control movement has always rested on certain essentially religious notions (indeed, though it is little publicized, much of the gun-control movement’s financial and institutional support comes from non-evangelical Protestant denominations). These notions are that violence – even against a criminal – is always bad, that ordinary people are not to be trusted, and that it is best to let the authorities look out for you.

In addition, the movement has always contained a rather strong undercurrent of hostility toward traditional American standards of masculinity, of which it sees the gun as a symbol.

It is here that things seem to have changed the most. Americans have learned that being harmless does not guarantee that they will not be harmed: in fact, it seems that terrorists (like ordinary criminals) actually prefer victims who cannot strike back.

The heroism of ordinary people in the aftermath of the attacks has also undercut the gun control movement’s elitist notions that ordinary Americans are dangerous, violent rubes who must be kept under control. (The absurdity of the chattering classes, with their exaggerated panic over anthrax mail and the ridiculous posturing of some peace advocates, has also served to give elitism a bad name).

According to reports, 75% of Americans want pilots to be armed , and Americans are voting against gun control with their pocketbooks as they rush out in large numbers to buy guns, many for the first time in their lives.

An Oct. 15 Zogby poll found that 56% of Americans feel the National Rifle Association speaks for them at least some of the time, and 66% feel that people who have passed a background check and taken a safety course should be able to carry a gun on their person or in their car.

Another poll of 1,000 people conducted by The Polling Company between October 11-14 found that 45% valued their Second Amendment rights "much more" (31%) or "somewhat more" (14%) since Sept. 11, while only 5% valued their Second Amendment rights "somewhat less" (3%) or "much less" (2%).

And, as Patricia Leigh Brown writes in the New York Times , manly men are back. What’s more, they’re at the forefront of our defense against terrorism in the skies, as the Times reports in another article. A hostility toward traditional American masculinity is no longer a workable basis for a political movement.

Worse yet, from the gun control movement’s standpoint, even the women are acting manly. As the quote that I opened this column with illustrates, American women are being particularly bellicose this time.

Maybe it’s the Taliban, with their nasty hostility to women. Maybe it’s just that this is the first major attack on the United States since feminism took hold. But whatever it is, the gloves are off, and the Rosie O’Donnell culture of passivity is dead. That means that efforts to stigmatize gun ownership as promoting violence, or vigilantism, or unseemly masculinity, are now sure to fail. That’s bad news for the gun control movement. But it’s worse news for the Taliban.
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:57 am

the first thing our forefathers thought was
"the people should have the right to express displeasure with the government and its leaders" 1st amendment
the second thing was
"the people should have the right to defend themselves and hunt to eat" 2nd amendment

gun control is the wrong solution to a serious problem, a solution that i believe will only make the problem of gun violence worse

leave me and my guns alone
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sun Nov 04, 2001 12:20 pm

somewhere in here is a post titled Kick ass Ted Nugent rant, i wanted to find it, gave up, but thats just about how i feel
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Sun Nov 04, 2001 12:44 pm

I'm completely against gun-control!

USA got no gun-control 250 million american manage to kill 30.000 with guns each year while EU with 400 million europeans only manage to kill 2.000 each year.
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sun Nov 04, 2001 12:56 pm

And then they say stuff like "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Excuse me while I laugh at your lack of logical thinking and deductive reasoning.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sun Nov 04, 2001 3:45 pm

Big difference between Europe and the USA.. there are more guns owned by the public in the USA then there are people.

That being the case, i never understood the point of gun control. The only people who it effects are the people who actually follow the law. You think criminals are going to comply with gun control laws?

Corth
Vipplin
Sojourner
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby Vipplin » Sun Nov 04, 2001 4:14 pm

Nice stats on US v European murder. I think that says a lot.

First time I read this I decided to let it pass. Then I changed my mind. I can’t abide people that use faulty logic. I’m not really big on gun control, but I know BS when I see it.


---Ok, gun control cost democrats the election? *laugh* As close as the race was in Florida, Gore winking instead of blinking during an interview could have done it.

---Bellesiles: What a putz, who cares, though -- look at the volume and size of the lies and misrepresentations Rush Lumbaugh perpetuates. That doesn't mean all republicans are idiots.

---Yay, courts. Right to own a gun doesn't mean you have a right to get it with no questions asked, though.

---By definition, the Court will interpret sections of the constitution (e.g. 2nd amendment) in ways that will not render them useless/meaningless. No reasonable lawyer has ever argued it means nothing, only what exactly it does mean.

---Have you met ordinary Americans? I don't want them to have guns. I don't like to trod on other's freedoms, though, so I say let 'em have guns, but lets keep damn good track of those guns and require owners to have proper secure storage equipment (safe etc) and a background check for violent crime or mental disorder, especially for handguns (concealable).

---Gun control rests on religious notions? BS. Gun control rests on notions like “I don’t want to be murdered by some ass with roadrage” or “I don’t want my kid going to your house and getting his brains blown out by accident when your dork 10 year old shows off your gun” I could go on. This as opposed to “You want to rob my house, kill me and rape my wife? Ok, I’m a good Christian so I won’t fight it.” I don’t think anyone in the gun control side of the house is in that camp (what are you nuts?). Granted, in England if you shoot an intruder in your home when you weren’t in danger, you can be prosecuted, but we are far from that in the U.S. We don’t believe in the turn-the-other-cheek thing as a nation (sorry, Osama J ). “Violence against even criminals is bad” Well, yes, but we do execute them, don’t we? Guns in self-defense are great, it is the offense part that people don’t like.

---Gun control movement has undercurrents of hostility towards masculinity? *laugh* So now you say gun control is like a feminist thing? That’s just ridiculous enough to be Lumbaugh-esqe…

---You seem to be trying to discuss gun control and terrorism as if they were related. They don’t seem to be. Two separate issues, methinks. Terrorists have many means to terrorize, and breaking into your house isn’t one of them. Maybe we should all be allowed to pack M-16s when we go to public places so we can shoot back? Terrorists strike populated, public areas - the kinds of places you don’t usually have your personal firearm collection with you… Ordinary crime and gun control seem to be related issues. Some say it would help, others say it would hurt.

---Heroism of Americans in the aftermath of the attacks has undercut notions that Americans can’t be trusted with guns? How so? And what has that got to do with elitism? Was it the lack of a sudden killing spree in Muslim neighborhoods that proved all gun-toting Americans showed god-like restraint? *ponder*

---We want pilots to have guns. And this has what to do with you having one in your EZ chair? People are buying them more now. No surprise, they feel threatened. Realize that I don’t personally advocate a ‘no gun’ policy. I just want more information about the people who have them and want them, and to ensure they are being responsible with those weapons (don’t let them get stolen, don’t let kids get at them etc.). If you don’t think we have a problem there, then you haven’t seen the statistics (or you’re a total boob).

---I don’t care about polls when it comes to my opinions. I get my own info and make up my own mind. It is interesting to hear what other people think (who may or may not have much knowledge about the issue, but are polled anyway). Just don’t read too much into the polls without actually reading the questions asked and the context. That goes for all polls everywhere.

---Happy to hear that no one’s mad at me for being a man anymore (didn’t know they were).

---The Rosie O’Donell culture of passivity is dead? I don’t think so. Americans are amazingly passive and continue to be so. Having women carry guns in their purses would have done NOTHING to prevent Sept 11, sorry to break the news to you.

--- Bad news for gun control = bad news for the Taliban? Whatever!


Ok I’m super-tired and burnt out. That was a rant. My apologies to all who read it!
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:14 pm

Trying to control guns is like the war on drugs, doesn't matter if they are illegal people are going to get them anyway.

For some reason people feel like rambo when they have the biggest baddest gun out there, and the scariest people are the ones that keep their guns loaded in hopes of shooting a would-be burglar. Unfortunately these are the people that shoot their loved ones and family members in the middle of the night.

I carry an assault rifle, a grenade launcher, a pistol, and usually about 400+ rounds and that scares me more than empowers me.

Should people have the right to bear arms? sure, should they have machine guns assault rifles grenades and tactical nukes in their basement coupled with the latest issue of soldier of fortune?.. no, but thats the way it is.. i just try to pretend those people dont exist Image..

my $1.95

E
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:30 pm

I fail to see how women carrying guns in their purses could have prevented two planes from hitting the world trade center.

What I don't fail to see, however, is the number of gun-related accidents every year. I don't want you to have a gun. Period. I don't care if George Washington told you that you could have a gun to fend off the redcoats. He also told you that you were required to give quarter to American soldiers in time of war, but that doesn't apply to today's society either.

But no argument on the Sojourn board is going to change anyone's mind, so really.. why bother?

- Ragorn
izarek
Sojourner
Posts: 645
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby izarek » Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:43 pm

It constantly amazes me how many of us americans feel like we're entitled to do whatever the hell we please and screw the rest of the populace. Living in orange county, california is a daily lesson in greed and self-entitlement.

Izzy
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:54 pm

Yeah, gun "control" makes me laugh... it only restricts law abiding people. If a criminal wants a weapon, they are going to get one, regardless of the stupid waiting period and stuff.

Its kinda like luggage locks.. they only keep honest people out. Like that little 50 cent lock is gonna keep a thief from stealing your sexy lingere :P
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sun Nov 04, 2001 8:18 pm

drugs are illegal, does that stop people who want them from getting them? NO
illegal immigrants cross the boarder everyday, can we stop all of them? NO
you are on glue if you think we can keep guns out.
no more guns behind the counter of ma and pas store, no more guns in my house...no more fear factor for criminals, now whut is there to dissuade them from taking the gun they weren't supposed to have even before you took them away from everyone else from walking in and taking whut they want?
you are living in some fantasy land if you think gun control will do anything but make criminals bolder, if you think this will somehow stop or even slow gang violence
and whut about wildlife populations? they need predators. the DNR (dept. natural resources) spends a lot of time and money to research animal populations to see where and how many animals should be harvested each year.
i grew up with guns, i was taught respect and fear for them very early in life
accidents happen, gun violence happens, both are tragedies, neither are the fault of either guns, gun manufacturers nor the typical jon q. gunowner. this is called passing the buck, find your goat blame all the problems you have on it and throw it over a cliff. yup that helps.
discharge of a firearm within city limits is illegal, taking the guns away from those who abide gun laws in hopes to curb gun violence doesn't even make sense.
i support strict punishment for the idiot shooting people, or even threatening people with guns STRICT HARSH PUNISHMENT
there is a problem with idiots and guns in this country, taking them away from everyone else isn't going to help
I for one am prepared to deal with the consequences of living in a free country.


TURXX -dont protect me from possibilities please-

[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-04-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-04-2001).]
Mplor
Sojourner
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby Mplor » Sun Nov 04, 2001 8:19 pm

That first post is an editorial: the opinion of someone whose mind was made up before he went looking at facts. Vipplin did a decent job of pointing out the flaws, so I won't mention the dozen more I saw at a first reading.

All the arguments have been made elsewhere, so I'll just say this, emphatically:

If an ammendment to the constitution were offered to severely restrict the 2d Ammendment in the areas of hand-guns and assault weapons, I would sign it as big as John Hancock, and feel every bit as patriotic.
Gakka
Sojourner
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gakka » Sun Nov 04, 2001 9:04 pm

--
USA got no gun-control 250 million american manage to kill 30.000 with guns each year while EU with 400 million europeans only manage to kill 2.000 each year.

----
I even think there is similar statistics for states that allow guns, and states that don't.
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Sun Nov 04, 2001 9:31 pm

I live in a highly redneck area...I personally own multiple guns, i hunt etc. Fear what happens if someone ever tried to take my guns away.
Zoldren
Sojourner
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 6:01 am
Location: mt. vernon, il
Contact:

Postby Zoldren » Sun Nov 04, 2001 10:02 pm

USA got no gun-control 250 million american manage to kill 30.000 with guns each year while EU with 400 million europeans only manage to kill 2.000 each year.
whats the #of guns usa / Euro? makes a big difference
whats tne # of owners of guns usa/Euro? there are lots of things to take into account when you post statistics and before you take a stat for gods honest truth....
Zrax
Sojourner
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairborn, OH, USA
Contact:

Postby Zrax » Sun Nov 04, 2001 10:17 pm

The problem isnt gun control. The problem is a class based society with levels of socio-econimic stratification you find in the United States. The middle class individual with a gun isnt what builds a murder statistic. Its the empoverished class whose best chance to thrive in a society is through violence that builds this statistic.
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:20 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gormal:
I live in a highly redneck area...I personally own multiple guns, i hunt etc. Fear what happens if someone ever tried to take my guns away.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

here here
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:29 pm

im pretty sure even law enforcement officer in europe doesnt carry a firearm, they drew the line.
are we prepared to draw the line like that?
take guns away from everyone, including the standard duty police officer?

[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-04-2001).]
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 05, 2001 12:03 am

Are guns used to kill people? Yes
Are guns used to save lives? Yes

Its a tool like anything else.. and unfortunately, many people misuse it. However, if person X has no regard for human life and kills someone, or person Y is an idiot who doesn't lock up his gun and his toddler shots himself, does it justify taking away a gun from person Z who keeps it in a safe place and might use it one day to protect himself and his family? I think not.

The United States, unlike many European countries, has a long tradition of individual liberties. Its the reason that the country is great and succesful. Socialism, unlike in Europe, has largely been kept in check in the U.S. Otherwise, the U.S. would be just another stagnant country like those in Europe. I am not willing to give up these values and adopt the European utilitarian "good of the many" philosophy.

Which is not to say that guns should be unrestricted. But if I have complied with whatever procedures are put in place to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, then nobody has the right to say I shouldn't have that gun. Simple as that. Only a truly immoral government would prevent citizens from defending themselves.

So in a sense im pro-gun control. I would deny convicts the right to have a gun. I would require that anybody who wants to have a gun take a comprehensive gun safety class. I would require that guns be stored in locked boxes. And I would prosecute anybody who fails to comply with these requirements (funny how people advocate endless restrictions but the ones currently in place are selectively enforced).

But I am very much against the European form of gun control which isn't "control" at all.. its an outright prohibition. Its completely immoral, regardless if it saves lives on the whole. It fails to take into account the individual god-given right to protect oneself.

Corth
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 05, 2001 12:05 am

If you want to protect your home, buy a security system.

If you want to hunt deer, buy a bow and learn how to use it.

Arguing to keep things legal because you're afraid that "criminals will get them anyway" is a terrible argument. By that logic, we should legalize everything from drugs to murder, because the people who are likely to utilize these things will "do it anyway".

What banning guns will do is cease their production and slow their distribution in our country. If guns are not readily available at every corner Wal-Mart, the people with guns will only be criminals with underground connections. Your average shitface punk will not be able to rob a 7-11 at gunpoint. Random crack addicts will not be able to get their hands on a piece to mug citygoers. The criminals who continue to possess guns are the ones who can manifest offshore sources. I don't advocate gun control to stop the Russian Mafia or the Colombian drug cartels. I advocate gun control to stop egotistical punks who got teased too much from buying a revolver at the Army surplus store and bringing it to school.

There's really no explanation for why any American needs to own an assault rifle. I'm sorry, there isn't. If you're a collector, you don't need a firing pin in your pieces, you can collect nonfunctional items just as easily. Hunters don't use them. Assault rifles are used for killing humans, period. There's no two ways about it. Banning ownership of assault rifles, along with nonmilitary usage of armor piercing and hollow-tip bullets will have no negative impact on our country's freedom. The only reason these implements of murder are still legal is because the gunheads are afraid that banning cop killers will be a "foot in the door" to taking away their precious guns.

That's fucking stupid.

- Ragorn
I guess I will argue it.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 05, 2001 12:05 am

On a completely different note.. isn't there something scary about having all the guns in a country concentrated in the hands of a government? Seems like a recipie for eventual military dictatorship if you ask me.

Corth
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 05, 2001 12:08 am

Ragorn:

Lets see how well a security system works against someone determined to break into your home and kill you or rape your wife. How about all those situations where some loony student walks into their school and starts shooting up the lunch room. I really wish that one of the teachers in the Columbine cafeteria had a concealed weapon.


As for assault rifles... I read a study, I cant recall who conducted it, but the results showed that only a miniscule percentage of homicides are caused by assault rifles. They are difficult to conceal which makes it impractical for most situations in which a gun would be used criminally.

Corth

[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 11-04-2001).]
Nitania
Sojourner
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Nitania » Mon Nov 05, 2001 12:32 am

(playing devil's advocate)

I actually used to know someone who was shot and killed by a bow. It wasnt even a cross bow... know who did it?

his 5 year old son.

Deaths are a statistic.

Nitania
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Nov 05, 2001 1:21 am

Ragorn:

"If you want to protect your home, buy a security system."

All a security system does is call the cops, and maybe make noise to wake you up as well. If the cops take even 5 minutes to arrive you'd be dead if the guy was determined to kill you. All it takes is a few seconds to run upstairs, point a gun, and pull the trigger 6 times.

"If you want to hunt deer, buy a bow and learn how to use it.

That's just the ranger in you talking. Image

Seriously though, bows can be just as dangerous in the hands of idiots. To add to Nitania's story... a guy in my high school shot himself with a bow in archery class by accident.

"Arguing to keep things legal because you're afraid that "criminals will get them anyway" is a terrible argument. By that logic, we should legalize everything from drugs to murder, because the people who are likely to utilize these things will "do it anyway". "

You are misinterpreting that argument Rags. The argument is that banning guns will make it more dangerous for normal citizens because they won't be able to defend themselves against people who will still illegally get guns. Your example of a student who goes to the army surplus store is an example of an illegally obtained handgun. Since it was already illegal, making it illegal won't help.

And no, it does not mean we should legalize everything. But think about it, what happened during prohibition? There was no way the cops could keep up with all the otherwise good citizens who started frequenting speakeasies and brewing their won alchohol.

"What banning guns will do is cease their production and slow their distribution in our country. If guns are not readily available at every corner Wal-Mart, the people with guns will only be criminals with underground connections. Your average shitface punk will not be able to rob a 7-11 at gunpoint. Random crack addicts will not be able to get their hands on a piece to mug citygoers. The criminals who continue to possess guns are the ones who can manifest offshore sources. I don't advocate gun control to stop the Russian Mafia or the Colombian drug cartels. I advocate gun control to stop egotistical punks who got teased too much from buying a revolver at the Army surplus store and bringing it to school."

No, it just means people will have to buy foreign handguns. Meaning more money going illegally to other countries rather than staying here. I can just imagine packages of dope being imported with guns packed in the powder so the addicts can use them to hold up liqour stores in order to buy more dope!

And it's rarely egotistical punks who go psycho. It's the quiet nerds who have no friends and no self-esteem. If we really want to fix this problem we should look into punishing students who harass others and building social skills in all of our youth. More parenting wouldn't hurt either. What made me sick about the columbine thing is that the parents knew they were building bombs in the garage and did nothing about it. And they illegally obtained the shotguns they used as well from a gun store, since you have to be over 18 to buy a gun.


"There's really no explanation for why any American needs to own an assault rifle. I'm sorry, there isn't. If you're a collector, you don't need a firing pin in your pieces, you can collect nonfunctional items just as easily. Hunters don't use them. Assault rifles are used for killing humans, period. There's no two ways about it. Banning ownership of assault rifles, along with nonmilitary usage of armor piercing and hollow-tip bullets will have no negative impact on our country's freedom. The only reason these implements of murder are still legal is because the gunheads are afraid that banning cop killers will be a "foot in the door" to taking away their precious guns."

Actually there is an explanation. Like Corth said, it is protection against a military dictatorship taking over. A handgun wouldn't do shit against trained military with body armor and grenade launchers. But, it's not a good explanation. In my mind a government would have to be run by a complete moron to try and turn america into a dictatorship, since we are insanely profitable as is. On the other hand, an idiot is currently running the country... Image


Subject:

I don't believe in gun control. But I hate guns. They are too simple a way to kill people; they cheapen death and, by extension, life. A martial artist, after training for 10 years or more, is able to kill a couple people with his bare hands. A swordsman, after training for a few years, can easily kill many people with a sword. A gunman, with no training at all, can easily cause a massacre. The difference is that a martial artist and a swordsman have both spent years learning their skills, and having them tempered with the wisdom of knowing when and how do use them. The gunman is like a child with a toy.

Sarvis, against both guns and gun control...
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:12 am

NRA4LIFE
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:31 am

Brugg
Moderator

Posts: 200
Registered: Jan 2001
posted 09-13-2001 10:05 AM

Written by Ted Nugent, the rock singer and hunter/naturalist, upon hearing
that California Senators B. Boxer and D. Feinstein denounced him for being a
"gun owner" and a "Rock Star". This was his response after telling the
senators about his past contributions to children's charities and scholarship
foundations which have totaled more than $13.7 million in the last 5 year s .

I'm a Bad American-this pretty much sums it up for me. I like big trucks, big
boats, big houses, and naturally, pretty women.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some midlevel
governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to
crack addicts squirting out babies.

I don't care about appearing compassionate.

I think playing with toy guns doesn't make you a killer. I believe ignoring
your kids and giving them Prozac might.

I think I'm doing better than the homeless.

I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized. I have the
right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make
me mad. This is my life to live, and not necessarily up to others
expectations. I know what SEX is and there are not varying degrees of it.

I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But if you want to that's fine; I just don't feel
like everyone else should have to.

I believe that if you are selling me a Dairy Queen shake, a pack of
cigarettes, or hotel room you do it in English. As of matter of fact, if you
are an American citizen you should speak English. My uncles and forefathers
shouldn't have had to die in vain so you can leave the countries you were
born in to come disrespect ours, and make us bend to your will. Get over it.

I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you're running
from them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word
'freeze' or 'stop' in English, see the previous line. I don't use the excuse
"it's for the children" as a shield for unpopular opinions or actions.

I know how to count votes and I feel much safer letting a machine with no
political affiliation do a recount when needed. I know what the definition of
lying is, and it isn't based on the word "is"-ever.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you qualify for
any special loan programs, gov't sponsored bank loans, etc., so you can open
a hotel, 7-Eleven, trinket shop, or any thing else, while the indigenous
peoples can't get past a high school education because they can't afford it.
I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet. I thought the Taco
Bell dog was funny.

I want them to bring back safe and sane fireworks.

I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or
Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that crap from
someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light. But I respect your right
to.

I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment than
working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box.

I don't want to eat or drink anything with the words light, lite or fat-free
on the package.

Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in vain
and defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me it's a
living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The guys who
wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they meant what they
said - now leave the document alone, or there's going to be trouble.

I don't hate the rich. I help the poor. I know wrestling is fake.I've never
owned, or was a slave, and a large percentage of our forefathers weren't
wealthy enough to own one either. Please stop blaming me because some prior
white people were idiots - and remember, tons of white, Indian, Chinese, and
other races have been enslaved too - it was wrong for everyone of them.

I believe a self-righteous liberal Democrat with a cause is more dangerous
than a Hell's Angel with an attitude.

I want to know exactly which church is it where the "Reverend" Jessie Jackson
preaches; and, what exactly is his job function. I own a gun, you can own a
gun, and any red blooded American should be allowed to own a gun, but if you
use it in a crime, then you will serve the time.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue
to make more. If it makes you mad, then invent the next operating system
that's better and put your name on the building. Ask your buddy that invented
the Internet to help you.

I don't believe in hate crime legislation. Even suggesting it makes me mad.
You're telling me that someone who is a minority, gay, disabled, another
nationality, or otherwise different from the mainstream of this country has
more value as a human being that I do as a white male. If someone kills
anyone, I'd say that it's a hate crime. We don't need more laws! Let's
enforce the ones we already have.

I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks. I believe that
it doesn't take a village to raise a child-it takes a parent with the guts to
stand up to the kid and spank his butt and say "NO!" when it's necessary to
do so. I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller. I
didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid.

I will not be frowned upon or be looked down upon or be made to keep silent
because I have these beliefs and opinions. I thought this country allowed me
that right. I will not conform or compromise just to keep from hurting
somebody's feelings. I'm neither angry nor disenfranchised, no matter how
desperately the mainstream media would like the world to believe otherwise.
Yes, I guess by some people's definition, I may be a bad American.

But that's tough.

Ted Nugent


and that about sums it up
ShaylaRose
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: OR, USA

Postby ShaylaRose » Mon Nov 05, 2001 3:57 am

[This message has been edited by ShaylaRose (edited 11-10-2001).]
Lyt
Sojourner
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Lyt » Mon Nov 05, 2001 4:59 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>Ragorn:

Lets see how well a security system works against someone determined to break into your home and kill you or rape your wife. How about all those situations where some loony student walks into their school and starts shooting up the lunch room. I really wish that one of the teachers in the Columbine cafeteria had a concealed weapon.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ragorn are you on crack? Taking away all the guns in the world will not stop crime or homicide. People in the old days used to use poison, clubs, knives, etc. People always find a way to complete the devious task they set out for. Anyways....remember that kid in Mississippi who went into his school and started shooting people? You know how he was finally subdued? There was a teacher who had a gun (I think it was in his car and we went and got it, but I am not sure) and confronted him and got the kid to drop his weapon. The trouble is you never heard that part of the story on the news. This is an excellent incident of using a gun to prevent further loss of life.

I had no idea that there would be this kind of response when I originally posted this editorial. I found it humorous, so I posted it. Lets ban sledge hammers, because someone might get killed with one.

The government you must fear most, is the one who thinks they are doing you a favor by trying to protect you from yourself. No one is going to decide my life for me, especially a bureaucratic group of people who are out of touch with reality.

Lyt
imp
Sojourner
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2001 6:01 am

Postby imp » Mon Nov 05, 2001 5:29 am

Woa are you lot for real?

So people actually see owning guns as something of freedom?

/Anders - only heard of you lot in the news here in Sweden.
Jhorr
Sojourner
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jhorr » Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:14 am

Just gotta put my two cents in here. You must be stoned if you think the public owning even assault rifles will stave off a tyrannical version of the US government. That argument for owning guns is the weakest of all. I don't think our forefathers could forsee the Stealth fighter even if they were light years ahead of their time.

I don't hunt. I don't think guns are cool so I don't collect them. And I'm not a revolutionary. So, if I were to buy a gun it would be to defend myself and my home against an intruder. I often have to live near bad and potentially violent neighborhoods but not necessarily in them. I like knowing that I could go buy a gun if my life became desperate. Besides, statistics show that I would be at even greater risk of dying the second I brought the gun into my home. A friend of mine bought a gun when she was being stalked by some loser asshole. She did it right: took a class, etc. She felt safer with the gun. I don't know if she still has it. That was years ago.

I think studies show that most murderers know their victims and it is usually over domestic issues. Guns make it easier but taking them away won't necessarily prevent the violence.

I don't think locked boxes would work too well. The kids can just find the key. Kids are sneaky like that. Smart guns are a better idea. Make it so that guns are not transferrable. There are ways around this too, but only for those who are extremely motivated.

I think NRA fanatics aren't helping the issue. "Don't take my guns away" is the mantra of a child. They need to grow up, acknowledge that there is a problem with guns, show more leadership, have better spokespeople, offer more creative solutions, and exhort less rhetoric.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:55 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lyt:
People in the old days used to use poison, clubs, knives, etc. People always find a way to complete the devious task they set out for. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is your argument? Image If people don't use guns to kill people, they'll use something else, so we should make guns legal? Image This and the "all criminals will have guns and I won't" viewpoint make me giggle Image

- Ragorn
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Mon Nov 05, 2001 7:20 am

solve what? poverty? domestic violence? poor parenting? carelessness? insanity?
these are the problems here not guns.
we all make our own choices, with each choice there is a consequence.
if you choose to bring a gun into you home and not educate yourself and your family, that was your choice.
if you choose to hold up a bank, that was your choice.
if you choose to stay with an abusive partner, that was you choice and should not be my problem.
we live in a free country, we have choices, take the good with the bad let me make my own decisions.
as long as there are people there will be social problems. there is no grand solution, there is no quick fix.
dont protect me from myself and dont take away my ability to make my own choice because someone else made a bad one.
if i choose to shoot someone blame me not my gun.
this i know whats best for you thinking is a social problem all its own.
live and let live
i cant come up with any good reason for me to conceal a weapon, nor can i come up with any good reason to tell my neighbor no you cant do that.
i can only hope my neighbor will make good choices and go on living my life.
there are a lot of potential dangers in the world.
just yesterday we were cutting firewood, opening day of rifle season for deer, when we came upon a tractor parked in the middle of the road. there was a fire engine spraying broken glass off the road and police directing traffic.
come to find out a stray bullet had passed thru the windows of his cab
i think that farmer was lucky
i think that hunter has no business in the woods
and i think gun control is wrong
Mplor
Sojourner
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby Mplor » Mon Nov 05, 2001 7:53 am

I expect to live to see hand-gun licensing made mandatory nationally. I expect to live to see a total ban on assault rifles. I don't expect to see an end to gun violence in my lifetime, but I believe my grandchildren have a chance to - but only if we start the long process now.

We are left alone with our day, and History - to the lost - may say Alas! but cannot help or pardon.

(thx WH Auden)
Lyt
Sojourner
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Lyt » Mon Nov 05, 2001 8:11 am

Guns are the great equalizer. A gun puts an 80 year old grandmother (properly trained of course) on equal footing with a 6'4" 250 lb attacker. I am not saying that guns are the solution to all problems, but they do give some people the extra protection that they need.

On TV you are always hearing about the crimes that were committed with guns, yet you never hear about potential crimes that were prevented by the lawful possession and use of firearms. There is a staggeringly larger number of deterred crimes from the possession of a gun, and even the threat of a possible firearm is enough to deter some criminals. Then they move on to Rosie's house. Image

BTW...speaking of Rosie....we all know how much she loves guns, and wants to get rid of them all. After she blasted Tom Selleck on her show because he was a member of the NRA, a week later it was found out that she told her bodyguard to go and get a concealed weapons permit so that he could better protect her children. Since when are Rosie's kids worth more than mine? How hypocritcal.
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Mon Nov 05, 2001 8:23 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>Otherwise, the U.S. would be just another stagnant country like those in Europe.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you wonder why the US are not liked in the rest of the world? Take a good look at yourself. Rarely have I heard such a base, uncalled for stereotype like that, and those times I do it's always coming from Americans.

Have you ever been to Europe? Could you even point it out on a map? Honestly? I sincerely doubt that. I'm so sick of this haughty we-are-the-best-the-rest-of-the-world-sucks attitude. You think the world revolves around you. What exactly is it that you have that is so great? Your crime rates? Your ethnic integration? Your social system? Your schools? Your political system? Please do tell me. Europe has a long, sometimes troubled, but glorious history - do your 200 years count? Let's see where you are in 1000 years and we'll discuss this again. My guess is you'll have fallen off that high-and-mighty horse of yours.

All other, decent, Americans have a nice day.
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Mon Nov 05, 2001 8:47 am

*chuckles*

I remember someone telling me to not be so arrogant. To not post condescending posts, and stop smoking crack.

Ragorn, you need to take your own advice dude. I have no problems with you voicing your opinions, but constantly saying things that all sum up to 'you are an idiot, and I am right', is really childish. You want all these valid arguements told to you, almost like you are challenging people to try and change your mind. I got news for you, though. No one opinion is right, and if your beliefs are that shaky, you should probably take a good long look at them.

You'll probably view this as a flame, and attack me. And honestly, that's ok. That's your choice. I just think you should look in the mirror sometimes. My opinion, though.

Cherzra:

I agree with you somewhat. A lot of Americans have become that angry bigot they strived for so long to stomp out. But I have yet to find a country in the world with as much freedom as we have. Sure, it isn't always pretty. Sure, it sucks sometimes. But you take the good with the bad. You have a valid point, though, and I am glad you realize it's not every American that thinks this way.

In general:

I am against gun control minimally. I think gun control won't solve the problem, and is simply yet another band-aid the US government is trying to foist off on the US citizens, to absolve them of figuring out how to parent their children correctly. That's what this all comes down to, drug dealers and their ilk aside... Bad parenting. Folks who are so busy with their lives, or just don't care enough, or simply don't have the know-how, to teach their children properly.

And it's sad that a large portion of those parents are the first ones to hop on the band-wagon and point the finger at anything but themselves. It may be a bad analogy, but it came to mind first... If you saw the South Park movie, remember the scenes where Kyle's mother is blaming Canada for their children's behaviour. Granted, this is an extreme, but a lot of Americans like to go to that extreme. It's unhealthy, but once it's become so inbred into your daily routine, it's hard to change.

I will eventually buy a gun when I have a family. I will keep it locked up. I will educate my child(ren), should I have any, about the dangers and benefits of that gun. I will also make damn sure my kid has some common sense, and actually understands this stuff. I won't just say it, and assume it sinks in. I will sit down and explain to my child some of the things MY father didn't explain to me.

And hope that in my child(ren)'s, or grandcild(ren)'s future, this won't have to be like this. But in the meantime, I believe it is a viable temporary way to protect your family. Laws won't prevent the bad people from getting their guns. It will just make it harder. And it will piss them off all the more, and require them to steal or sell more, to keep up.

It's a vicious cycle. One I am not proud to see.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 05, 2001 9:32 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Malacar:
Ragorn, you need to take your own advice dude. I have no problems with you voicing your opinions, but constantly saying things that all sum up to 'you are an idiot, and I am right', is really childish. You want all these valid arguements told to you, almost like you are challenging people to try and change your mind. I got news for you, though. No one opinion is right, and if your beliefs are that shaky, you should probably take a good long look at them.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My beliefs are not shaky. My beliefs are very straightforward. I'll bullet point them.

- I do not believe you, yes YOU Sojourn-board-reading-American, should be allowed to own any firearm classified as an "assault rifle" by the US Government. I don't care where you live, what you want to use it for, or how many training classes you've taken.

- I believe that non-assault firearms should be licensed and tracked across state lines. A firearm should not be sold to anyone with a felony conviction in the last seven years, or a violent crime conviction in the last ten years. A handgun should not be sold to anyone who has been prescribed behavior-altering medications in their lifetime, which I can list for you if you want. I believe there should be a mandatory seven day waiting period on all firearm purchases, and a time-related maximum placed on purchases. If you're a collector, your gun shed isn't going anywhere between today and next Sunday.

- I believe that if handguns are restricted sufficiently, gun-related petty crime will cease to exist. Nobody will hold up a convenience store if the penalty for possession of an unlicensed handgun is mandatory prison time. No fines, no warnings, zero tolerance. Get caught jacking a 7-11, you do a year in jail and lose your gun priviledges for six more after that? Is it worth the $300 you might get if you pull it off?

- I don't believe that having universal equalizers in our society is always a positive. Yes, it protects potential rape victims. But it also allows random civilians to endanger the lives of police officers. A 26-year old police officer with a year of training and 4 years of experience should never feel his life is in danger because of a 16 year old street rat while doing his job. Putting guns on the street is like giving each level 1 character one scroll of Inferno and sending them into Acheron Image

- I believe anyone who thinks they need a gun to fend off the government needs medication and supervision. If the government really wanted to establish martial law, the second amendment would be little deterrant. The National Guard has bigger guns than you do.

- I believe the government has the right to pass laws for the safety of its citizens. In fact, I believe that is the primary purpose of government. Age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, seat belt laws, restriction of controlled substances, even R-rated movies. These are laws that exist, either to protect you, or to protect someone else FROM you. I like it that way. I like feeling safe. Freedom's great, but I like to leave my house now and then.

- Constitutionally, you are allowed to possess a firearm. As fundamentally wrong as I believe that to be, I will never challenge your right to do so as long as our government deems it appropriate. I will point to a million cases and say "See? See?" but I will never believe anyone is a lesser person because of their choice to own a deadly weapon.


I expect argument, I expect rebuttal, I expect nobody on this board to change their mind about anything. I like intelligent discussion on issues. What I don't like to see is arguments based on paranoia, because I like to think that my neighborhood is devoid of people who stockpile guns for the day the government turns against us. That scares me. And I'll give up a little freedom to feel safe.

- Ragorn
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Mon Nov 05, 2001 10:27 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B> My beliefs are not shaky. My beliefs are very straightforward. I'll bullet point them.

- I do not believe you, yes YOU Sojourn-board-reading-American, should be allowed to own any firearm classified as an "assault rifle" by the US Government. I don't care where you live, what you want to use it for, or how many training classes you've taken.

i say,
whut is an "assault rifle"? whut is the criteria? more than 10 rounds? semi automatic?(and of which can easily be converted to fully auto) grey lines like that make it very easy to become confused or over zealous in where the line is. who are you to tell me i cant stand in my back yard and shot the shit outta my wood pile cuz i think its fun?

- I believe that non-assault firearms should be licensed and tracked across state lines. A firearm should not be sold to anyone with a felony conviction in the last seven years, or a violent crime conviction in the last ten years. A handgun should not be sold to anyone who has been prescribed behavior-altering medications in their lifetime, which I can list for you if you want. I believe there should be a mandatory seven day waiting period on all firearm purchases, and a time-related maximum placed on purchases. If you're a collector, your gun shed isn't going anywhere between today and next Sunday.

i say,
how do you propose to track these guns? satellite tracking maybe? where is the money and resources for this supposed to come from? i pay enough taxes.
prescribed drugs....now your invading doctor patient confidentiality

- I believe that if handguns are restricted sufficiently, gun-related petty crime will cease to exist. Nobody will hold up a convenience store if the penalty for possession of an unlicensed handgun is mandatory prison time. No fines, no warnings, zero tolerance. Get caught jacking a 7-11, you do a year in jail and lose your gun priviledges for six more after that? Is it worth the $300 you might get if you pull it off?

i say,
armed robbery is a felony, it is a minimum of a year and a day(min prison sentence) and you pull an armed robbery i say no more guns for you EVER!
hell simply saying you have a gun is a terroristic threat, a felony, prison time
and i would love to meet the genius who holds a place up with a registered hand gun.

- I don't believe that having universal equalizers in our society is always a positive. Yes, it protects potential rape victims. But it also allows random civilians to endanger the lives of police officers. A 26-year old police officer with a year of training and 4 years of experience should never feel his life is in danger because of a 16 year old street rat while doing his job. Putting guns on the street is like giving each level 1 character one scroll of Inferno and sending them into Acheron Image

i say,
agreed, much a Corvette should not be a kids first car, but it is not for me to decide

- I believe anyone who thinks they need a gun to fend off the government needs medication and supervision. If the government really wanted to establish martial law, the second amendment would be little deterrent. The National Guard has bigger guns than you do.

i say,
agreed, but i dont trust a government that dont trust me

- I believe the government has the right to pass laws for the safety of its citizens. In fact, I believe that is the primary purpose of government. Age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, seat belt laws, restriction of controlled substances, even R-rated movies. These are laws that exist, either to protect you, or to protect someone else FROM you. I like it that way. I like feeling safe. Freedom's great, but I like to leave my house now and then.

i say,
"I believe the government has the right to pass laws for the safety of its citizens."
i dont believe they have the right to make "common sense" decisions for me, let me make my own choices and ill be happy to deal with their consequences

- Constitutionally, you are allowed to possess a firearm. As fundamentally wrong as I believe that to be, I will never challenge your right to do so as long as our government deems it appropriate. I will point to a million cases and say "See? See?" but I will never believe anyone is a lesser person because of their choice to own a deadly weapon.

i say,
you point and say see? see? and if im not to busy worrying about myself ill show you the flip side of the coin

I expect argument, I expect rebuttal, I expect nobody on this board to change their mind about anything. I like intelligent discussion on issues. What I don't like to see is arguments based on paranoia, because I like to think that my neighborhood is devoid of people who stockpile guns for the day the government turns against us. That scares me. And I'll give up a little freedom to feel safe.

- Ragorn</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i say,
dont take any of my freedoms, a great many of my family went to war so i could have them yesterday, today and tomorrow.


TURXX -proud to be American, proud to be free, happy thinking for myself-

[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-05-2001).]
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Mon Nov 05, 2001 11:19 am

---Ok, gun control cost democrats the election? *laugh* As close as the race was in
Florida, Gore winking instead of blinking during an interview could have done it.


i dont dougt for a second there was enough money and enough pressure from anti gun control groups and polititions to stop Ghore, he won the popular vote, i firmly believe it was his gun control stance that cost him the election, and i know it cost him my vote.

[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-05-2001).]
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 05, 2001 11:22 am

Cherzra:

And what has Europe done for the world besides provide two world wars? What exactly does Europe produce? Ok, ill give you pretentious cinema and expensive clothes. But besides that? Almost all of the major industries in the world are american dominated. I imagine you have probably watched a Hollywood movie lately, and have felt guilty about eating some McDonalds. And what happened when you had that embarassing little problem in the Balkans and needed some help sorting that out? Wasn't the first time the Americans bailed you out. So comment all you want on our crime rate, ethnic integration problems, and so on... collect your unemployment checks and enjoy your state sponsered health care scheme, but remember who will save your ass once again if the shit hits the fan while you flame me back on your american computer with a Microsoft operating system.

Corth

[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 11-05-2001).]
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Mon Nov 05, 2001 11:29 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by imp:
<B>Woa are you lot for real?

So people actually see owning guns as something of freedom?

/Anders - only heard of you lot in the news here in Sweden.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not a freedom, a right
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 05, 2001 11:30 am

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">whut is an "assault rifle"? whut is the criteria? more than 10 rounds? semi automatic?(and of which can easily be converted to fully auto) grey lines like that make it very easy to become confused or over zealous in where the line is. who are you to tell me i cant stand in my back yard and shot the shit outta my wood pile cuz i think its fun?</font>


According to the state of California, this is an assault rifle:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/aw.htm

The definition of "assault rifle" that keeps coming up in my search is "...a rifle used by militaries. It has a switch that permits it to fire like a semiautomatic rifle or as a fully automatic rifle. Some also have a switch position that causes the gun to shoot a short burst of several shots each time the trigger is pulled" (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/guntypes.html#assaltryfl) This site is, unfortunately, not objective material, as it is biased heavily toward the side of gun owners. But I figured I'd bring it up. All of my sources seemed to agree that an assault rifle is one which can be switched from semi- to fully-automatic.

That is what an assault rifle is. It is defined by your government, the same government charged with protecting the Constitution which you swear by. As for your wood pile, I am the same person who doesn't want you to be allowed to smoke crack in your basement either. I'm sorry. Your absolute freedom to do as you please was never guaranteed.

<B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">how do you propose to track these guns? satellite tracking maybe? where is the money and resources for this supposed to come from? i pay enough taxes.
prescribed drugs....now your invading doctor patient confidentiality</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Create a database updated every time a gun is purchased, containing the name of the consumer and his home address, along with the serial number of the firearm. Giving your name and address is not violation of privacy, as it is public information found on your driver's license. When a violent crime is committed with a handgun, trace the serial number of the handgun to the person who purchased it. If the felon is not the consumer, possession of the gun is illegal.

Of course, I'm a psych student, not a law student. And being a psych student, I know full well that a patient's medical history as it relates to violent behavior is admissable evidence in court. If the government should choose to find medical history invasion of privacy at the point of purchase, then I'd be just fine with the waiting period and the sanctions for illegal possession.

<B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">armed robbery is a felony, it is a minimum of a year and a day(min prison sentence) and you pull an armed robbery i say no more guns for you EVER!
hell simply saying you have a gun is a terroristic threat, a felony, prison time
and i would love to meet the genius who holds a place up with a registered hand gun.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you see some of the logic in registration of handguns. If you're caught with a handgun not registered to you, you are arrested for illegal possession of an unauthorized handgun on top of the felony itself. If you're arrested with a gun you legally purchased, then your right to possess is revoked for a number of years (or life, either is fine with me). This is legislation that would mostly prevent repeat offenders.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">agreed, but i dont trust a government that dont trust me</font>


I'd say our government trusts its citizens more than just about any other government on earth. You have the freedom to speak, even against the establishment. You can gather, protest, even exhibit rebellious behavior. The problem is not how to deal with citizens who have proven they can't be trusted. The problem is how to figure out who can and who can't. And if we determine it's impossible to figure out who can be trusted, then my belief is that we should move toward removing the problem altogether.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">i dont believe they have the right to make "common sense" decisions for me, let me make my own choices and ill be happy to deal with their consequences</font>


But they do. The government regulats a LOT of what should be "common sense." Driving age, drinking age, seat belt laws, a lot of what I listed are so-called common sense laws. But the problem with common sense is that it differs from one person to the next.

I used to work with a woman whose broher was in a car accident. He wasn't wearing a seat belt and was flung from the car. He survived, and the car exploded. If he'd been wearing a seat belt he would have died in the explosion. This particular woman took that to mean that seat belts were a poor choice in all situations, and instructed her kids to never wear them.

In order to keep idiots like Janet from splattering their brains all over the road, the government passed a law about seat belts.

- Ragorn
This will go on forever!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 05, 2001 11:43 am

Ragorn:

Why should the government be concerned if Janet wants to risk her own life and its not putting anyone but herself at risk? I understand the point of regulations that are designed to keep one person/group/company from endangering others, but why a regulation to keep someone from hurting themself by requiring them to wear a seatbelt? If you ask me, its just a convenient way for the government to raise revenue (by issuing tickets) under the pretext that it is looking out for you.

The drug laws are another problem. Why should some poor slob who is addicted to heroin be subjected to black market prices in order to obtain what they physically need to stay healthy. Furthermore, why should they be incarcerated for doing something that directly hurts nobody by themself? Im curious what your thoughts are on this subject.. though it is off topic i know.

Corth
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Mon Nov 05, 2001 12:16 pm

Create a database updated every time a gun is purchased, containing the name of the
consumer and his home address, along with the serial number of the firearm. Giving
your name and address is not violation of privacy, as it is public information found on
your driver's license. When a violent crime is committed with a handgun, trace the
serial number of the handgun to the person who purchased it. If the felon is not the
consumer, possession of the gun is illegal.

so you want to track all gun owners like they were criminals out on parole? no thank you
and hand guns arent registered to the owner the owner i registered to them, you need a permit to own handguns(avail at you local sheriff dept after the run a background check) and yet another harder to obtain permit to carry it with you. and i say registered or not you commit a crime with it it an illegal gun.


The problem is how to figure out who
can and who can't. And if we determine it's impossible to figure out who can be
trusted, then my belief is that we should move toward removing the problem
altogether.

it is impossible to determine who can and cannot be trusted.
what is the problem? guns? no i dont think so, by the same token so are cars, so are knives, bows and arrows, any sort of chemical or biological knowhow, you cannot be rid of the problem, the problem is people, the problem is inequalities, welcome to the free world bud, welcome to capitalism, where we are not all equal where some have more than others, where people have the right to be different and to treat one another different.
there is not nor will there ever be a fixall.
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Mon Nov 05, 2001 12:23 pm

Why is it easier to get a gun than get a car?
Why do you need a license to drive a car, but you don't need one for carrying a gun!

ITS OUR GOD-GIVEN-RIGHT TO DRIVE CARS WHERE WE WANT TO!

/Jegzed!
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Mon Nov 05, 2001 12:40 pm

to add to what corth said, i dont like seat belts, i dont wear them.
i will not wear a helmet while hwy riding and i will not trail ride without one

and as far as drugs laws are concerned i think they should be abolished. users are not criminals, dealers are. i think there should be a section of tax laws for illgotten gain, if the government wants to take some moral high horse against drugs, refuse to collect taxes for the sale and jail dealers on tax violations, and certain drugs maybe reckless endangerment. did you know some cases dealers are charged with attempted manslaughter? isnt manslaughter by definition the accidental death of another as a result of your lack of judgment? how can you attempt to accidentally kill someone? the problem isnt a lack of laws its an over abundance and lack of enforcement.
but if i want to grow weed, cook meth, grow and refine cocain or heroin thats my own business. the first time someone other than myself myself comes to harm by my choices, there should be consiquences.
dont get me wrong im not all into drugs, but i fail to see how its any of my business, or yours, if my nieghbor gets all cracked out in his basement
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Mon Nov 05, 2001 1:01 pm

Turxx, I think it's because it is technically mind altering. I might be wrong, but pretty sure on this one.

The act itself is basically harmless. But what if one of them gets behind the wheel? Yes, they should be punished, but proactive measures for stuff like that are in place for a reason...

Which lends itself to the hypocrisy of the american society. Drugs are illegal. But cigarettes and alcohol aren't... They either all should be illegal, or all legal. It's very contradictory, in my opinion, to allow some, but not all.

Selective authority, etc. And don't throw prohibition at me. Plus I also know it's not possible to change it one way or the other, simply stating what I think.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 05, 2001 1:49 pm

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">so you want to track all gun owners like they were criminals out on parole? no thank you</font>


The system I outlined for tracking and recording gun purchases is identical in every way to the method used to register cars. My car registration has my name, address of residence, social security number, and birthdate, as well as the make and model of my car and its Vehicle Identification Number. I don't see why gun registration has to be any different.

If you commit a vehicular crime, they punch up your registration and link you to the car. Same with the gun plan I proposed. I don't feel like a criminal on parole for driving a car, and it's my belief that once gun owners get past the initial outrage, they will hardly notice the process at all.. if they're abiding to it Image

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">and hand guns arent registered to the owner the owner i registered to them, you need a permit to own handguns(avail at you local sheriff dept after the run a background check) and yet another harder to obtain permit to carry it with you. and i say registered or not you commit a crime with it it an illegal gun.</font>


I could be wrong cause I'm not current, but I believe that the permit laws are state-regulated and not federal. I'm all for background checks, but I'd like to federally mandate what the background check searches for. Namely, past criminal activity, and if judged constitutional, mental stability.

<B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">what is the problem? guns? no i dont think so, by the same token so are cars, so are knives, bows and arrows, any sort of chemical or biological knowhow, you cannot be rid of the problem, the problem is people, the problem is inequalities, welcome to the free world bud, welcome to capitalism, where we are not all equal where some have more than others, where people have the right to be different and to treat one another different.
there is not nor will there ever be a fixall.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with firearms which is not shared with the other items you mentioned is the properties of the gun itself. We have a device which is almost impossible for the common person to defend himself against effectively. Consider:

- The projectile travels faster than the human eye can distinguish.

- The projectile penetrates all commercially available clothing materials.

- It is capable of killing a fully grown adult literally with the twitch of a finger.

- It is easily concealed in everyday clothing.

- Up to a certain range, it requires no preparation or training to activate. You just point and pull.

- It is available for purchase by almost anyone, almost anywhere.

Killing someone with a gun requires far less effort than a bow and arrow, car, chemical weapon, etc. And it is less restricted than cars and chemical weapons, certainly. We have a device here which is capable of taking a human life in many circumstances in an instant with no retaliation. Yes, I would like to regulate firearms Image

- Ragorn
Glad to see there aren't any flames.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 05, 2001 1:57 pm

And now, my theories on drugs.

First off, I'm in favor of loosening the restrictions on controlled substances. I am in favor of restriction, not elimination, of substances which are not immediately addicting in a physical or emotional sense, unless these substances are proven to alter behavior in a violent or decadent manner. I have no problem with marijuana. I don't mind E.

However, I believe the reason drugs like LSD, cocaine, and heroin need to stay restricted is simple. These are easily disguised substances which form an immediately biological addiction. One of the major arguments of the anti-tobacco industry is that the cigarette companies are knowingly selling a product which causes health problems while fostering addiction. That's the logic I believe they enforce the drug policy by. The government simply doesn't want people getting hooked on things which will eventually kill them.

I look at it this way. If my kid tries a cigarette when he's 14, he can easily walk away. If he gets hooked, he can walk away at 16, 18, 25, whatever. If someone gives my kid a shot of heroin when he's 14, he is far more likely to end up addicted, and the drug is far more likely to have serious short and long term health problems. There's just no reason for that substance to be legal, in my opinion.

- Ragorn

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests