(Close Window)
Topic: Anti Gun...check this out..
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 26, 2011 03:48PM)
http://www.fmkfirearms.com:80/ThePatriotsDen/blog/fmkblog.php/?p=920

This should tell you something.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 26, 2011 04:28PM)
I'm amused by the label "anti-gun advocate". A quick search seems to indicate that he has been in favor of gun control. I can find no evidence that he is "anti-gun".

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 26, 2011 04:55PM)
[quote]The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.[/quote]

Typical of the behavior we see in many of the high and mighty, as we've touched on in other discussions here. To folks like this, the law is for the little people.

W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 26, 2011 05:28PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 17:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I'm amused by the label "anti-gun advocate". A quick search seems to indicate that he has been in favor of gun control. I can find no evidence that he is "anti-gun".

John
[/quote]

This is what I suspected. So he just thinks certain people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves like he did.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (May 26, 2011 05:29PM)
A check of Snopes reveals that the article is a mixture of true and false information.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/soles.asp


Ron
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 26, 2011 05:33PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 17:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I'm amused by the label "anti-gun advocate". A quick search seems to indicate that he has been in favor of gun control. I can find no evidence that he is "anti-gun".

John
[/quote]

Often we find that "anti gun" and "gun control" end up as being one in the same in America. If you have found he is in favor of "gun control" you have found evidence he is indeed "anti-gun". I know you enjoy parsing words and splitting hairs, but the fact is that when it comes to the 4th ammendment many bristle at the slightest move against it, but are just happy as a clam to let them shread the 2nd.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 26, 2011 05:35PM)
So, wait.

The story is actually from 2009.

The Senator is already retired from the Senate.

The Senator already had his day in court and plead guilty back in 2010:

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7114530/

He was fined $1000.

The NRA gave the Senator an “A” in 2004, 2006, and 2008.

So how and why is the article in the original post news now, in May of 2011?

Weird ...

[I just saw the Snopes link posted above ... thanks for that.]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 26, 2011 05:41PM)
I can't imagine why it is news now, I was commenting on "anti-gun" "gun control".
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 26, 2011 05:46PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 18:41, Dannydoyle wrote:

I can't imagine why it is news now, I was commenting on "anti-gun" "gun control".
[/quote]
I wasn't replying to your post in particular, but it's all good.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (May 26, 2011 05:59PM)
Gun control is hitting your target.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 26, 2011 07:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 18:28, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 17:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I'm amused by the label "anti-gun advocate". A quick search seems to indicate that he has been in favor of gun control. I can find no evidence that he is "anti-gun".

John
[/quote]

This is what I suspected. So he just thinks certain people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves like he did.
[/quote]

This is what I feared. People would draw conclusions without even bothering to look for facts.

Find a statement by Soles indicating his policy. Please. Maybe post it here.

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 26, 2011 07:57PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 18:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
I can't imagine why it is news now, I was commenting on "anti-gun" "gun control".
[/quote]

It isn't news. It's a old story wrapped in falsehoods being used to a) push a gun agenda and b) attack "liberals".

It's a loathsome strategy and it works. Look at all the fish that have swallowed the bait, hook and all.

John
Message: Posted by: critter (May 26, 2011 08:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 18:59, Steve_Mollett wrote:
Gun control is hitting your target.
[/quote]

I thought it was using both hands.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 26, 2011 08:33PM)
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 26, 2011 08:57PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

Do you mean a convicted criminal, after "serving" their "time?" So, they aren't allowed to defend themselves and their homes, even after being "rehabilitated" by the "justice" system? Just to clarify.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 26, 2011 09:54PM)
Yes, even having served their time there are still things that are and should be denied.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 26, 2011 09:58PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:54, ed rhodes wrote:
Yes, even having served their time there are still things that are and should be denied.
[/quote]

So, when an armed invader breaks into their house, it's essentially "**** you" to the home owner?

Gotta love how "loosely" some play with the idea of something NOT being infringed.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 26, 2011 10:05PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 26, 2011 10:16PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
Danny, do you think anyone who can afford it should be allowed to own a howitzer?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 26, 2011 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:58, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:54, ed rhodes wrote:
Yes, even having served their time there are still things that are and should be denied.
[/quote]

So, when an armed invader breaks into their house, it's essentially "**** you" to the home owner?

Gotta love how "loosely" some play with the idea of something NOT being infringed.
[/quote]Maybe if the American justice system focused more on rehabilitation instead of retribution, you'd have a point.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 26, 2011 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:16, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
Danny, do you think anyone who can afford it should be allowed to own a howitzer?
[/quote]

No, clearly only a privileged few.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 26, 2011 10:20PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
I'm not sure, but I think the United States might be the only nation that ties conservatism to guns in any particular way. Well, that is certainly your prerogative.

But consider, there are certainly liberal nations with high rates of gun ownership. And the most conservative nations in the world (e.g., like Saudi Arabia) have very strict gun control laws.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 26, 2011 10:44PM)
According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership]Wikipedia[/url]


Country↓ Guns/100 residents (2007)↓ Rank

United States 88.8 1
Yemen 54.8 2
Switzerland 45.7 3
Serbia 37.8 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35.0 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Finland 32.0 8
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13
Austria 30.4 14
Germany 30.3 15

I'd have to agree with Balducci. There does not appear to be a liberal/conservative trend here.

John
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (May 26, 2011 10:46PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:58, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:54, ed rhodes wrote:
Yes, even having served their time there are still things that are and should be denied.
[/quote]

So, when an armed invader breaks into their house, it's essentially "**** you" to the home owner?

Gotta love how "loosely" some play with the idea of something NOT being infringed.
[/quote]

Do you wake up in the morning thinking this stuff up, wondering what fire to throw the gas on? And you call this discussion?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 26, 2011 11:01PM)
A gun is just a tool really.

More murders worldwide are committed with kitchen knives and screwdrivers because they're more readily available.

Check it up if you don't believe me.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 26, 2011 11:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 00:01, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
A gun is just a tool really.

More murders worldwide are committed with kitchen knives and screwdrivers because they're more readily available.

Check it up if you don't believe me.
[/quote]
Together, or each on their own? I can believe knives on their own are used to commit more murders than guns, but I would have to challenge you on screwdrivers.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 26, 2011 11:16PM)
You are challenging me on screwdrivers?

Like in a duel? :P

But seriously...

I meant knives on their own, screwdrivers lesser, more in my country...
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 27, 2011 06:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
Believing in registration of firearms means one is a "radical liberal?" A bit of extreme rhetoric, even for you Danny.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 08:13AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:58, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:54, ed rhodes wrote:
Yes, even having served their time there are still things that are and should be denied.
[/quote]

So, when an armed invader breaks into their house, it's essentially "**** you" to the home owner?

Gotta love how "loosely" some play with the idea of something NOT being infringed.
[/quote]

Have you ever heard the term "repeat offenders". They are probably the biggest portion of all crimes commited.

Do you think child molesters after serving their time should run a day care center?

I am pro gun all the way...but there are some people who should not have fire arms.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 08:25AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 07:46, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
Believing in registration of firearms means one is a "radical liberal?" A bit of extreme rhetoric, even for you Danny.
[/quote]

No, but who would let such a person watch their kids? Also, what does running a daycare have to do with a person's right to defend themselves?

Gun ownership is not a right in america, but now a privilege. Hell, I'd say all constitutional rights are now treated like privileges now.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 27, 2011 09:37AM)
When you commit a felony, you forfeit your rights. Otherwise you could not be incarcerated ("Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.") It's then up to the State (or Nation, depending) on which rights should be restored. Ex-felons can't vote in many states, either.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2011 09:43AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 10:37, EsnRedshirt wrote:
When you commit a felony, you forfeit your rights. Otherwise you could not be incarcerated ("Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.") It's then up to the State (or Nation, depending) on which rights should be restored. Ex-felons can't vote in many states, either.
[/quote]

When convicted you may have some rights suspended, but that's not quite the same as "you forfeit your rights". (The notable exception, of course is capital offenses, where this still occurs.)

John
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 10:05AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 09:25, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 07:46, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
Believing in registration of firearms means one is a "radical liberal?" A bit of extreme rhetoric, even for you Danny.
[/quote]

No, but who would let such a person watch their kids? Also, what does running a daycare have to do with a person's right to defend themselves?

Gun ownership is not a right in america, but now a privilege. Hell, I'd say all constitutional rights are now treated like privileges now.
[/quote]



Clever how you left the post off tht I ws responding to when you posted the above. Just to include it again here it is:

gdw asks:

Do you mean a convicted criminal, after "serving" their "time?" So, they aren't allowed to defend themselves and their homes, even after being "rehabilitated" by the "justice" system? Just to clarify.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Well I clarified it and you chose to ignore it but added something else to derail the answer.

The question you ask about letting someone like that watch your children is irrelevant and you know it. It is more of a question as to whether this person has a right to watch them. The answer is NO.

Just like certain crimes after being commited by a person their right to pocess a firearm should be and is in many cases taken away from them.

I laugh at the term rehabilitated in one of your posts. All of the prople let out of prison are supposed to be rehabilitated...what a joke. Most end up back in a short time. So as usual you are just stirring the pot trying to muddy the waters. Your question was asked and answered but you did not like the answer so you tried to side track your original question which you thought was clever. Sorry to disappoint but it was a dumb questionto start with.

Now I hope that clarifies it.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2011 10:12AM)
@acesover

It was shown a long time ago that your original post was predicated on outright falsehoods. Are you at least going to acknowledge that this whole discussion began with lies?

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 27, 2011 11:44AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 07:46, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
Believing in registration of firearms means one is a "radical liberal?" A bit of extreme rhetoric, even for you Danny.
[/quote]

So now asking questions is "extreme rheoric"? Wow.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 03:18PM)
Acesover, actually, that was completely unintentional. I merely quoted the wrong post. To provide actual clarity an context, here is what it should have looked like:

[quote]
On 2011-05-27 09:25, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 09:13, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:58, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:54, ed rhodes wrote:
Yes, even having served their time there are still things that are and should be denied.
[/quote]

So, when an armed invader breaks into their house, it's essentially "**** you" to the home owner?

Gotta love how "loosely" some play with the idea of something NOT being infringed.
[/quote]

Have you ever heard the term "repeat offenders". They are probably the biggest portion of all crimes commited.

Do you think child molesters after serving their time should run a day care center?

I am pro gun all the way...but there are some people who should not have fire arms.
[/quote]

No, but who would let such a person watch their kids? Also, what does running a daycare have to do with a person's right to defend themselves?

Gun ownership is not a right in america, but now a privilege. Hell, I'd say all constitutional rights are now treated like privileges now.
[/quote]

There was no intent to be clever, or obfuscate by leaving anything out. I would think that you, at least, would have been able to put it to gether to get the proper context, as I was responding to what you said.

Just in case it's still unclear to anyone:

I was not ignoring anything, but rather responding directly to your "clarification."

"question you ask about letting someone like that watch your children is irrelevant and you know it."

YOU were the one who brought up a child molester running a day care. No, they do not have a right to watch anyone's children, in fact NO ONE does, which is exactly why the issue of whether or not you would ALLOW them to is relevant.

No one HAS to sell a felon a gun either, the question is whether or not they have the right to own one, and to defend themselves and their home.

"I laugh at the term rehabilitated in one of your posts. All of the prople let out of prison are supposed to be rehabilitated...what a joke. Most end up back in a short time. So as usual you are just stirring the pot trying to muddy the waters. "

There was a reason I put the word in quotations. Your accusation about trying to stir the pot, and muddy the waters falls flat, as I was, at least I thought, also making a comment on the idea that prison "rehabilitates" (see, I did it again with the quotes) people.

My point was that, within the context of the same system that is taking away their "right" to own guns, they have served their "punishment," the purpose of which is, if they are released, to have "rehabilitated" them. To not "allow" them to own guns says as much about the idea of it being a "right" as it does the efficacy of, and their confidence in their own, "judicial" system.

Notice the use of quotation marks again? I'm using them when I think the term is being used loosely, or laughably, among other things.
Hope that clarifies things for you.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (May 27, 2011 05:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 00:01, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
A gun is just a tool really.

More murders worldwide are committed with kitchen knives and screwdrivers because they're more readily available.

Check it up if you don't believe me.
[/quote]

Hi Pakar,

So then if a gun was available (rather than the kinife or screwdriver) those murders would definitely still have been committed, as clearly the intent to harm/kill was there from the start. But with a gun the task would have been so much easier (simply pulling a trigger vs the messy business of stabbing (probably repeatedly) with a knife or screwdriver). The question is, how many murders DIDN'T get committed because the knife/screwdriver was too barbaric and a gun wasn't available (but would have been used if it was)?

Making guns available wouldn't have reduced the overall number of murders, it probably would have INCREASED the number.


Ron
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 27, 2011 05:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 12:44, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 07:46, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
Believing in registration of firearms means one is a "radical liberal?" A bit of extreme rhetoric, even for you Danny.
[/quote]

So now asking questions is "extreme rheoric"? Wow.
[/quote]
"I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are." By that standard, 78% of the US in 1990 were radical liberals. Even you don't believe that.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 06:20PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 18:44, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 00:01, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
A gun is just a tool really.

More murders worldwide are committed with kitchen knives and screwdrivers because they're more readily available.

Check it up if you don't believe me.
[/quote]

Hi Pakar,

So then if a gun was available (rather than the kinife or screwdriver) those murders would definitely still have been committed, as clearly the intent to harm/kill was there from the start. But with a gun the task would have been so much easier (simply pulling a trigger vs the messy business of stabbing (probably repeatedly) with a knife or screwdriver). The question is, how many murders DIDN'T get committed because the knife/screwdriver was too barbaric and a gun wasn't available (but would have been used if it was)?

Making guns available wouldn't have reduced the overall number of murders, it probably would have INCREASED the number.


Ron
[/quote]

I don't think reduction was specifically his point.

As for the rest, it is highly unlikely that those same murders would have been committed with guns were more available. Stabbings tend to be crimes of passion, unless these people all had their guns on their hips, loaded, safety off, they likely would not have gone with the gun.
The knives and screwdrivers are used because they are immediately at hand, and they are grabbed in the moment.

As for min passionate stabbings, what a lovely concept. The stabbing instrument would have been intentionally choosen, probably over the gun for specific reasons, noise, etc.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 27, 2011 06:22PM)
[quote]
Making guns available wouldn't have reduced the overall number of murders, it probably would have INCREASED the number.


Ron
[/quote]

That's your opinion. I don't agree. There were plenty of nasty murders long before guns even existed. Knives, poison, swords, arrows... where there's a kill there's a way. I've often said if I was to kill someone out of hatred or vengeance then it would be much more satisfying to do it with my bare hands than with an impersonal bullet. Not that I would kill anyone for those reasons. Just sayin'.
I don't think it can be proven one way or another whether there would be more murders with or without guns because there are other factors beyond merely weapon type involved in murder rates. Poverty, political climate, bad romances. Meh.
I'm hungry. I'mma go get me some of them french fried potaters.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 06:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 11:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
@acesover

It was shown a long time ago that your original post was predicated on outright falsehoods. Are you at least going to acknowledge that this whole discussion began with lies?

John
[/quote]


Why the heck do yo say my original post was a lie? I only posted a link. I am not sure what you mean. Honestly when being called a liar I woudl like some sort of explanation.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 27, 2011 06:40PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:27, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 11:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
@acesover

It was shown a long time ago that your original post was predicated on outright falsehoods. Are you at least going to acknowledge that this whole discussion began with lies?

John
[/quote]


Why the heck do yo say my original post was a lie? I only posted a link. I am not sure what you mean. Honestly when being called a liar I woudl like some sort of explanation.
[/quote]

I assume that you will take responsibility for your link. Did you post it because you thought its content was true? If so, then you need to account for that.

Did you post it because you thought it contained false information? That would require some explanation.

Did you post it because you are indifferent to the truth of its claims? In which case, I'll just bow out now.

So I guess the question is this: why did you post the link? And now that it is clear that it contains falsehoods, does that change how you feel about posting it?

John
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 06:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 16:18, gdw wrote:
Acesover, actually, that was completely unintentional. I merely quoted the wrong post. To provide actual clarity an context, here is what it should have looked like:

[quote]
On 2011-05-27 09:25, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 09:13, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:58, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 22:54, ed rhodes wrote:
Yes, even having served their time there are still things that are and should be denied.
[/quote]

So, when an armed invader breaks into their house, it's essentially "**** you" to the home owner?

Gotta love how "loosely" some play with the idea of something NOT being infringed.
[/quote]

Have you ever heard the term "repeat offenders". They are probably the biggest portion of all crimes commited.

Do you think child molesters after serving their time should run a day care center?

I am pro gun all the way...but there are some people who should not have fire arms.
[/quote]

No, but who would let such a person watch their kids? Also, what does running a daycare have to do with a person's right to defend themselves?

Gun ownership is not a right in america, but now a privilege. Hell, I'd say all constitutional rights are now treated like privileges now.
[/quote]

There was no intent to be clever, or obfuscate by leaving anything out. I would think that you, at least, would have been able to put it to gether to get the proper context, as I was responding to what you said.

Just in case it's still unclear to anyone:

I was not ignoring anything, but rather responding directly to your "clarification."

"question you ask about letting someone like that watch your children is irrelevant and you know it."

YOU were the one who brought up a child molester running a day care. No, they do not have a right to watch anyone's children, in fact NO ONE does, which is exactly why the issue of whether or not you would ALLOW them to is relevant.

No one HAS to sell a felon a gun either, the question is whether or not they have the right to own one, and to defend themselves and their home.

"I laugh at the term rehabilitated in one of your posts. All of the prople let out of prison are supposed to be rehabilitated...what a joke. Most end up back in a short time. So as usual you are just stirring the pot trying to muddy the waters. "

There was a reason I put the word in quotations. Your accusation about trying to stir the pot, and muddy the waters falls flat, as I was, at least I thought, also making a comment on the idea that prison "rehabilitates" (see, I did it again with the quotes) people.

My point was that, within the context of the same system that is taking away their "right" to own guns, they have served their "punishment," the purpose of which is, if they are released, to have "rehabilitated" them. To not "allow" them to own guns says as much about the idea of it being a "right" as it does the efficacy of, and their confidence in their own, "judicial" system.

Notice the use of quotation marks again? I'm using them when I think the term is being used loosely, or laughably, among other things.
Hope that clarifies things for you.
[/quote]

I don't evenknow where to begin to repond to your nonsense. Why in your opinion are some rehabilted and some not after serving time? Child molesters are not but other felons are? I say in most cases most are not. As I said before most crimes are committed by repeat offenders who are in you opinion rehabiliated so I guess we should arm them legally. What in the name of God are you smoking?

Child molesters should run a day care center no more than a convicted felon should have the right to pocess and arm himseslf with a firearm after committing a felony in which someone was caused bodly harm or if drugs were involved and or rape in other words a felony. You may think differently. However you live in Canada so in my opinion and probably some others here it does not matter what you think about our laws here in the U.S. You are such a busy body. Should call you "Miss gdw Busybody". Putting your nose where it does not belong. Police your own country or is it perfect?

You ask if I think a child molester should run a day care center after serving his time. No definitely not. But reading your posts it seems as if you do. Also if said child molestor had a gun while commiting the crime according to you he should be able to pocess a firearm to defend his home and property also. Maybe this is how it works north of the border.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

This next post of yours is typical gdw and is classic and is as follows:
Acesover posted:
I am pro gun all the way...but there are some people who should not have fire arms.
[/quote]

gdw posted in response:
No, but who would let such a person watch their kids? Also, what does running a daycare have to do with a person's right to defend themselves?

Used as a comparison that both individuals have served their time and are rehabiliated in your opinion it follows that you believe the child molester can run a day care center because he served his time. Sort of flawed thinking on your part. Now see how you can twist and muddy up the water again.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 06:50PM)
More guns, less crime. All of the pundits have been perplexed over the past week because of the news that despite the economic tailspin, serious crime is down in all but a few jurisdictions, with notable exceptions such as New York City. How can that be? I don't know for sure, but one reason may be that there are more guns in private hands than there were 10 years ago. The overwhelming majority of US States have adopted laws which require county sheriffs to issue concealed carry permits to any law abiding citizen, and in all of those States, unless I am mistaken, crime is down. There are 300 million guns in private hands in the United States, and about 9 billion rounds of ammunition were bought each year by private citizens recently. That has got to be a deterrent. When the bad guys aren't sure of a helpless victim, they have to think twice.

W.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 07:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:40, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:27, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 11:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
@acesover

It was shown a long time ago that your original post was predicated on outright falsehoods. Are you at least going to acknowledge that this whole discussion began with lies?

John
[/quote]


Why the heck do yo say my original post was a lie? I only posted a link. I am not sure what you mean. Honestly when being called a liar I woudl like some sort of explanation.
[/quote]

I assume that you will take responsibility for your link. Did you post it because you thought its content was true? If so, then you need to account for that.

Did you post it because you thought it contained false information? That would require some explanation.

Did you post it because you are indifferent to the truth of its claims? In which case, I'll just bow out now.

So I guess the question is this: why did you post the link? And now that it is clear that it contains falsehoods, does that change how you feel about posting it?

John
[/quote]

I really have to be honest here. I am not sure what is not true in the original post. Did he shoot someone or not? I honestly do not know. From what I am to understand he is anti gun and I am not sure what gun control for those that are anti gun means. I am sure the phrases "gun control" and "anti gun" have the same meaning to many. I assumed (bad thing)he does not endorse the right to own firearms as many feel the constsitution allows and would like tighter regulations on owning firearms. In my opinion ther are enough laws regulating firearms however they are not enforced as they should be. It just semed ironic that someone who had these opinions had a firearm in his home and knew how to use it yet does not advocate the same for others.

I may be wrong in my assumptions as I did not research the post that I found but rather just posted a link to it to show what I consider his hipocracy. Many politicans campaign on ideals that they do no endorse but believe will get them elected.

Again I am not sure what is a lie in the article I posted. If it is wrong I apologize but I did not write it but rther only found it and posted it. To be honest that is one of the reasons I seldom use information on the net but rather just voice my own opinion. By doing differently this time it seemes like it bit me in the read end if what I posted is nothing but a lie.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 27, 2011 07:11PM)
It amazes me how alone I seem to be in our country when it comes to this issue. I think ALL guns should be abolished, PERIOD. No exceptions. Yes, people would still have illegal firearms, and I guess we can go on living our lives in fear, hoping that we can shoot them before they shoot us, but I find that incredibly sad. I think guns provide zero (yes, ZERO) positivity in our culture. Realistically, I know they won't ever be banned, and if they were I know it would still cause chaos because people would still have them, just like they still break other laws. I just find it sad that they were ever invented in the first place.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 07:20PM)
Acesover, your post was all over the place, made no sense, and you claim I asked you the question you first asked me.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 27, 2011 07:29PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:11, Andrew Zuber wrote:
It amazes me how alone I seem to be in our country when it comes to this issue. I think ALL guns should be abolished, PERIOD. No exceptions. Yes, people would still have illegal firearms, and I guess we can go on living our lives in fear, hoping that we can shoot them before they shoot us, but I find that incredibly sad. I think guns provide zero (yes, ZERO) positivity in our culture. Realistically, I know they won't ever be banned, and if they were I know it would still cause chaos because people would still have them, just like they still break other laws. I just find it sad that they were ever invented in the first place.
[/quote]

I can only answer with this may be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Umm guns provide ZERO productivity? Ummm how about many people who manufacture them, sell them, oh and operate hunting lodges, and so forth. Your position can't even be defended remotely.

Make it a crime to have guns, and only criminals will have guns. Good plan you have there. Would you like it if we took away the 4th ammendment? How about the 6th? Or for that matter any of the top 10? Why are you so willing to throw away MY RIGHTS just because you don't quite understand?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 27, 2011 07:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime. [/quote]
Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 08:04PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:20, gdw wrote:
Acesover, your post was all over the place, made no sense, and you claim I asked you the question you first asked me.
[/quote]

Simply explaining your flawed thinking that after serving time in prison a person is now ready for society just because they served time and shouldl be allowed to own and pocess a firearm legally. Wake up and smell the roses.

I will repeat for your simple mind and ask the same question about the child molestor as I did in the first place because you indicate that after serving time one is rehabiliated. Do you feel that a child molestor should be allowed to operate a day care center for children after serving his timie as according to you he is rehabiliatetd. The reason for asking and you know full well what I mean is that you say that after serving their time they are rehabiliated, ready for society so they should be able to operate a day care s center for children and pocess firearms.

So by your reasoning a child molestor should be able to be around children because he served his time and paid his dues. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Oh I forgot give him a gun also.

Now don't twist it. Just read it and understand the stupidity of your reasoning.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 08:05PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime. [/quote]
Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.
[/quote]

Can you back that up with evidence? ;)
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 08:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:05, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime. [/quote]
Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.
[/quote]

Can you back that up with evidence? ;)
[/quote]

This may help: http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/03/01/more-guns-less-crime/


I am sure you can find something to contradict this and on and on and on.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2011 08:14PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:11, Andrew Zuber wrote:
It amazes me how alone I seem to be in our country when it comes to this issue. I think ALL guns should be abolished, PERIOD. No exceptions. Yes, people would still have illegal firearms, and I guess we can go on living our lives in fear, hoping that we can shoot them before they shoot us, but I find that incredibly sad. I think guns provide zero (yes, ZERO) positivity in our culture. Realistically, I know they won't ever be banned, and if they were I know it would still cause chaos because people would still have them, just like they still break other laws. I just find it sad that they were ever invented in the first place.
[/quote]

If it makes you feel any better, you're definitely not alone in our country on this issue. That being said, there are two pretty obvious consequences to abolishing all guns, period -

1) (some) criminals would still have guns (as you point out in your post); and
2) By definition, no law-abiding citizens would have guns.

Since we can't undo the invention of guns in the first place, it seems (to me) unlikely that the best solution is to create a framework under which criminals would have guns and law abiding citizens would not.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 08:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:20, gdw wrote:
Acesover, your post was all over the place, made no sense, and you claim I asked you the question you first asked me.
[/quote]

Simply explaining your flawed thinking that after serving time in prison a person is now ready for society just because they served time and shouldl be allowed to own and pocess a firearm legally. Wake up and smell the roses.

I will repeat for your simple mind and ask the same question about the child molestor as I did in the first place because you indicate that after serving time one is rehabiliated. Do you feel that a child molestor should be allowed to operate a day care center for children after serving his timie as according to you he is rehabiliatetd. The reason for asking and you know full well what I mean is that you say that after serving their time they are rehabiliated, ready for society so they should be able to operate a day care s center for children and pocess firearms.

So by your reasoning a child molestor should be able to be around children because he served his time and paid his dues. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Oh I forgot give him a gun also.

Now don't twist it. Just read it and understand the stupidity of your reasoning.
[/quote]

Now that post was at least coherent, but flawed.

Do I need to repeat my self? I was criticizing the idea that prison rehabilitates prisoners, and the contradictions in the thinking behind the "justice" system, so please stop saying that I said that served time equals rehabilitate. Do I need to spell it out? I was being I-R-O-N-I-C.

So "my" reasoning does not suggest child molesters should be allowed to run a daycare.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 08:22PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:12, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:05, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime. [/quote]
Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.
[/quote]

Can you back that up with evidence? ;)
[/quote]

This may help: http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/03/01/more-guns-less-crime/


I am sure you can find something to contradict this and on and on and on.
[/quote]

Um, aces, I really don't even know how to respond to this.
Or were you meaning to quote Esn, not me?
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 08:32PM)
"why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy to lug around." Lol.

As often, I'm with Penn on this. Everyone should own a gun, but me.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 27, 2011 08:36PM)
Geeky art has zero credibility.

Oops. On an iPad, stupid autocorrect, that was supposed to be Breitbart has zero credibility. At any rate, I'm now going to assume Woland gets his ideology from old Heinlein novels. I recall Heinlein writing that guns make a polite society in "The Moon IsA Harsh Mistress". He also praised polygamy in that same novel. His later novels went even further downhill. (I won't elaborate unless pressed.)

(Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Heinlein, but would hardly use him as a source to generate a political philosophy.)
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2011 08:37PM)
[quote]I think guns provide zero (yes, ZERO) positivity in our culture. Realistically, I know they won't ever be banned, and if they were I know it would still cause chaos because people would still have them, just like they still break other laws. I just find it sad that they were ever invented in the first place.[/quote]

Let me offer a contrarian point of view. Guns provide a LOT of positivity in our lives. And I don't just mean rifles and shotguns that people use for our magnificent shooting sports. I mean handguns, which can also be used to train the hand, the eye, and the mind, but which find their most important utility in augmenting a human being's ability to defend herself.

Samuel P. Colt's development of a practical repeating revolver was a tremendous boon to mankind.

Thanks to Samuel Colt, the crippled and disabled no longer must live in fear of able-bodied thugs. A 5 foot tall 92 pound woman does not have to fear a 240 pound would-be rapist. An elderly couple does not have to fear being alone in their own home. And so forth.

Now there is no way to keep this technology out of the hands of evildoers. There is no way to keep knives, fire, bombs, cars, and airplanes out of the hands of evildoers, either. But that's no reason to disarm the law-abiding citizens and turn them into helpless victims who can be bullied, raped, plundered, and killed whenever an evildoer wants to.

There is no jurisdiction in this country that has seen an increase in violent crime after going from a no-issue or a may-issue situation to a shall-issue situation. Like or not, that's the truth.

The places in this country where you are most at danger of being victimized by a mass shooter, are in "gun free" zones. All of the recent major shooting incidents took place in "gun free" zones. Ban guns altogether, turn the whole country into a "gun free" zone and you'll see the rate of violent crime go way up, as it has gone way up in Great Britain. Have you ever read Conan Doyle? What does Dr Watson almost invariably take with him whenever he goes on an expedition with Mr Holmes? His revolver . . . It was ordinary and usual for doctors, lawyers, and even parsons to carry revolvers in Victorian and Edwardian England . . . there were no "gun control laws" at all. . . and gun crime was almost unknown. Over the course of the 20th century, gun laws in England became stricter and stricter, guns were taken away from most of the people (originally in order to prevent a working-class revolution) and gun crime has now become a major problem . . . To be sure, there are other problems in England contributing to the current mess . . . where you something like 10 or 20 times more likely to be the victim of violent crime in London than you are in even New York . . . but disarmed people are just helpless victims for bullies and criminals . . .

W.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 27, 2011 08:38PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:29, Dannydoyle wrote:

I can only answer with this may be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Umm guns provide ZERO productivity? Ummm how about many people who manufacture them, sell them, oh and operate hunting lodges, and so forth. Your position can't even be defended remotely.

Make it a crime to have guns, and only criminals will have guns. Good plan you have there. Would you like it if we took away the 4th ammendment? How about the 6th? Or for that matter any of the top 10? Why are you so willing to throw away MY RIGHTS just because you don't quite understand?
[/quote]
Like I said, I recognize that abolishing guns at this stage of the game would have all kinds of issues, but you conveniently glossed over that in favor of "hunting lodges."

Just because I'm an American doesn't mean I have to agree with every single thing in the constitution, and I don't. I think there are plenty of flaws. In fact, so did a lot of other people, hence the amendments to it. I'm not talking about the 4th amendment (protection against unlawful searches) or the 6th amendment (the right to a speedy trial.) I'm referring to the amendment that allows people to carry weapons. I love it when people try and use something unrelated to the issue at hand to try and defend it, but I'll do the same thing - cigarettes are good. In fact, they're great! Look at all the jobs they provide! Tobacco farmers, manufacturers, distributors, etc. And what about all of the health care workers who get paid treating countless cases of lung cancer and other such diseases each year that are created by smoking? We should encourage people to smoke - it will save our economy!

I understand what I see and read and hear about when it comes to guns. I see national tragedies. I see cops getting killed - in fact I saw four of them get killed in a coffee shop here in Washington two years ago. Some idiot walked in and killed four police officers. And I hear the argument over and over again - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well tools don't build houses, people do. You try building a house with nothing but your bare hands and we'll see how long before it collapses. Yes, people do stupid things, and it's a stupid country that continues to manufacture and sell the tools that those idiots use. Sure, they can find other tools, other ways to kill. Guns sure do make it convenient though, don't they?

I don't care if it provides jobs. Drug dealers and pimps have jobs too. Doesn't make their business right in my book. Why do you want a gun? Is it to protect yourself? Do you like living a life where you need to sleep with a weapon under your pillow to feel safe at night? I sure don't.

I'm not saying let's abolish guns now. We're obviously too far beyond that point. The idiots would still have them and bad things would still happen. I'm saying they never should have been created in the first place.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 27, 2011 08:43PM)
Woland, by that reasoning, everyone should carry Uzis to defend themselves from criminals with sub-machine guns. Or bazookas. Or maybe small nuclear bombs...

Where does the arms race end?
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 08:50PM)
I agree with woland, though, with regards to "shall issue," I just say you shouldn't even have to ask.

If the policy is that they have to issue to anyone that asks, what's the point in having to issue at all?

What purpose does the formality of asking for permission serve besides reinforcing subservience?

You don't ask permission to exercise a right.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 08:55PM)
No it doesn't Esn, it says they simply should be ALLOWED too.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 27, 2011 09:19PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:50, gdw wrote:
I agree with woland, though, with regards to "shall issue," I just say you shouldn't even have to ask.

If the policy is that they have to issue to anyone that asks, what's the point in having to issue at all?

What purpose does the formality of asking for permission serve besides reinforcing subservience?

You don't ask permission to exercise a right.
[/quote]Sure, let's give guns to paranoid schizophrenics.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for that position anywhere.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2011 09:30PM)
You DO ask for some rights, at least in the USA. Your Canadian mileage may vary. For instance, you have the right to a jury trial; however, if you choose not to exercise your right to a jury trial, you can have a court trial (with the judge as the trier of fact as well as of law). So you ask for the jury trial that you have a right to. You have the right to take your money out of the bank, but you still have to ask for it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 09:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 22:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:50, gdw wrote:
I agree with woland, though, with regards to "shall issue," I just say you shouldn't even have to ask.

If the policy is that they have to issue to anyone that asks, what's the point in having to issue at all?

What purpose does the formality of asking for permission serve besides reinforcing subservience?

You don't ask permission to exercise a right.
[/quote]Sure, let's give guns to paranoid schizophrenics.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for that position anywhere.
[/quote]

Who said anything about "giving" them guns?
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 09:49PM)
Well, considering those require the actions of others, they aren't really "rights." They may be "enshrined" in your constitution, but rights aren't created by constitutions.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 27, 2011 09:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 22:45, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 22:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:50, gdw wrote:
I agree with woland, though, with regards to "shall issue," I just say you shouldn't even have to ask.

If the policy is that they have to issue to anyone that asks, what's the point in having to issue at all?

What purpose does the formality of asking for permission serve besides reinforcing subservience?

You don't ask permission to exercise a right.
[/quote]Sure, let's give guns to paranoid schizophrenics.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for that position anywhere.
[/quote]

Who said anything about "giving" them guns?
[/quote]

You're right. Let's let the paranoid schizophrenics buy their guns like anyone else.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 27, 2011 10:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime. All of the pundits have been perplexed over the past week because of the news that despite the economic tailspin, serious crime is down in all but a few jurisdictions, with notable exceptions such as New York City. How can that be? I don't know for sure, but one reason may be that there are more guns in private hands than there were 10 years ago. The overwhelming majority of US States have adopted laws which require county sheriffs to issue concealed carry permits to any law abiding citizen, and in all of those States, unless I am mistaken, crime is down. There are 300 million guns in private hands in the United States, and about 9 billion rounds of ammunition were bought each year by private citizens recently. That has got to be a deterrent. When the bad guys aren't sure of a helpless victim, they have to think twice.

W.
[/quote]


wow.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 27, 2011 10:16PM)
Let's let buy dog leases that they can strangle people with too.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2011/03/03/seaforth-schizophrenic-strangled-ex-best-friend-with-dog-lead-100252-28268798/

To focus on schizophrenics and guns is to be missing the forest through the trees on two issues.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2011 10:25PM)
I have a brilliant idea. I know, I know, a lot of you here are saying how can that be it is acesover lol? :)

OK here goes. Right now guns are legal to be owned and carried my many people in many states. So having said that..Let them do it and those who choose not to let them not do it. Wow that was simple.

While this next thought is off topic and I do not want to derail this thread I am anti abortion. But for now it is legal and those who wish to have one let them. Those who choose not to have one let them not. Wow again simple.

I despise abortion. Some here despise guns and the right to carry them. However both are legal (abortion,right to own and carry guns). So as the saying goes, "LIVE AND LET LIVE". By the way there is sort of a pun in that saying while discussing guns and abortion.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 27, 2011 10:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 23:16, gdw wrote:
To focus on schizophrenics and guns is to be missing the forest through the trees on two issues.
[/quote]

You'd be the last person I'd have expected to retreat from a good ol' reductio ad absurdum.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2011 10:28PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:09, acesover wrote:

Again I am not sure what is a lie in the article I posted. If it is wrong I apologize but I did not write it but rther only found it and posted it. To be honest that is one of the reasons I seldom use information on the net but rather just voice my own opinion. By doing differently this time it seemes like it bit me in the read end if what I posted is nothing but a lie.
[/quote]
Opinions are fine, but I think they need to be backed up with facts to be taken seriously.

And I think information off the web is also fine, but it should be cross checked against neutral or close to neutral sources before it is taken seriously.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 27, 2011 11:38PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:16, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 23:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 21:33, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yep, he had a D in front of his name when he was a senator, therefore he was anti-gun.

For the record, though a lot of people here consider me to be a radical liberal, I do believe in the right to bear arms. (Provided you're not a criminal or insane.)
[/quote]

BUT do you believe in registration of firearms? Do yo believe in "gun control"? And I bet the answer to these simple questions show you for the radical liberal you really are LOL
[/quote]
Danny, do you think anyone who can afford it should be allowed to own a howitzer?
[/quote]


Sure sign of a losing argument is when you have to use extremes. It's in the same line of thinking as the argument, 'if God is all powerful can God create a stone that God can't lift.'

Esnrdsht your argument is baseless and trite.

No one is making an argument for owning a howitzer (or whatever outrageous example you want to suggest).

You know that of course but I'm betting you feel you can't defend your own position so you have to try and set Danny up in an indefensible position.

Weak.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 27, 2011 11:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime. [/quote]
Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.
[/quote]

Read John Lott's book. But only do so if you're interested in learning. I wouldn't want you to pull your head out of the sand for nothing.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 27, 2011 11:53PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 21:43, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Woland, by that reasoning, everyone should carry Uzis to defend themselves from criminals with sub-machine guns. Or bazookas. Or maybe small nuclear bombs...

Where does the arms race end?
[/quote]

There you go again with the extremes.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 28, 2011 12:03AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 00:38, RobertSmith wrote:
Sure sign of a losing argument is when you have to use extremes. It's in the same line of thinking as the argument, 'if God is all powerful can God create a stone that God can't lift.'
[/quote]

A sure sign of a winning argument is one that holds when tested at its extreme boundaries. I think that pointing out the (presumably) undesirable consequences of people owning Howitzers is of a different kind than the (apparent)* logical impossibility of God creating a stone that He couldn't lift.


*I say "apparent" out of respect for a response provided by a good friend of mine who is both a logician and a Christian. His rebuttal to the apparent paradox is to say, "Yes, God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he'd lift it." His point being that an omnipotent God could quite plausibly circumvent the laws of logic as we understand them in the same way that He circumvented the laws of physics (e.g. walking on water) as we understand them. He (my friend, that is) suggests that the fact that we as human beings cannot make any sense of how it could be conceivable to lift a rock that one cannot lift doesn't mean that it would pose an insurmountable challenge to God.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 28, 2011 05:51AM)
Thanks, gdw, for your agreement, above. Your point that one shouldn't need to apply to the sheriff for a permit to exercise a basic human right is well taken. In fact, that is the position that has always been taken by the State of Vermont. The Vermont State constitution goes even farther than the US Constitution in protecting the right to keep & bear arms. No permit of any kind has ever been required in Vermont to carry a weapon, either openly or in a concealed manner. You do need to be 18 or over, and have a valid State I.D., and I don't think convicted felons or those adjudged insane can carry. But basically, Vermont is a no permit, open & concealed carry State. Local LEOs can issue a permit to Vermonters who wish to apply for permits in other States, under reciprocity guidelines, but not permit is needed in Vermont to carry a pistol, by either a resident or a visitor.

And Vermont is one of the States with the lowest rates of violent crime in the entire nation.

Alaska and Arizona have more recently adopted free no-permit open & concealed carry laws. So in 3 States, so far, what the US Constitution protects as a basic human right, as basic as freedom of speech and of religion, can be exercised without asking the sheriff for permission.

As they say in Vermont, "Freedom & Unity!"

Woland
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 28, 2011 06:21AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 23:25, acesover wrote:
I have a brilliant idea. I know, I know, a lot of you here are saying how can that be it is acesover lol? :)

OK here goes. Right now guns are legal to be owned and carried my many people in many states. So having said that..Let them do it and those who choose not to let them not do it. Wow that was simple.

While this next thought is off topic and I do not want to derail this thread I am anti abortion. But for now it is legal and those who wish to have one let them. Those who choose not to have one let them not. Wow again simple.

I despise abortion. Some here despise guns and the right to carry them. However both are legal (abortion,right to own and carry guns). So as the saying goes, "LIVE AND LET LIVE". By the way there is sort of a pun in that saying while discussing guns and abortion.
[/quote]

:thumbsup:
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 28, 2011 06:41AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 01:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 00:38, RobertSmith wrote:
Sure sign of a losing argument is when you have to use extremes. It's in the same line of thinking as the argument, 'if God is all powerful can God create a stone that God can't lift.'
[/quote]

A sure sign of a winning argument is one that holds when tested at its extreme boundaries. I think that pointing out the (presumably) undesirable consequences of people owning Howitzers is of a different kind than the (apparent)* logical impossibility of God creating a stone that He couldn't lift.


*I say "apparent" out of respect for a response provided by a good friend of mine who is both a logician and a Christian. His rebuttal to the apparent paradox is to say, "Yes, God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he'd lift it." His point being that an omnipotent God could quite plausibly circumvent the laws of logic as we understand them in the same way that He circumvented the laws of physics (e.g. walking on water) as we understand them. He (my friend, that is) suggests that the fact that we as human beings cannot make any sense of how it could be conceivable to lift a rock that one cannot lift doesn't mean that it would pose an insurmountable challenge to God.
[/quote]
Lobo you beat me to it. Hmm, I'm starting to agree with you too much these days, though I recognize it's more about how to argue than what. Voltaire, blah blah blah, which I think he never said BTW.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 28, 2011 08:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 01:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 00:38, RobertSmith wrote:
Sure sign of a losing argument is when you have to use extremes. It's in the same line of thinking as the argument, 'if God is all powerful can God create a stone that God can't lift.'
[/quote]

A sure sign of a winning argument is one that holds when tested at its extreme boundaries. I think that pointing out the (presumably) undesirable consequences of people owning Howitzers is of a different kind than the (apparent)* logical impossibility of God creating a stone that He couldn't lift.


*I say "apparent" out of respect for a response provided by a good friend of mine who is both a logician and a Christian. His rebuttal to the apparent paradox is to say, "Yes, God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Then he'd lift it." His point being that an omnipotent God could quite plausibly circumvent the laws of logic as we understand them in the same way that He circumvented the laws of physics (e.g. walking on water) as we understand them. He (my friend, that is) suggests that the fact that we as human beings cannot make any sense of how it could be conceivable to lift a rock that one cannot lift doesn't mean that it would pose an insurmountable challenge to God.
[/quote]

Testing boundries of an arguement is ok, but ESN almost without fail moves into the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. This is to extrapolate an arguement to rediculous proportions then critisize the results. (you already know this I am certain.) It is a logical fallacy. Testing boundries is ok but he almost without fail pushes them to this level. The Howizer is certainly an example of this. Show me where I said anyone should, or even can own one.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (May 28, 2011 08:58AM)
From the Harvard School of Public Health. Here are just a couple of pages from that study...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html



Ron
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 28, 2011 10:05AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 09:58, R.S. wrote:
From the Harvard School of Public Health. Here are just a couple of pages from that study...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html


Ron
[/quote]

Nice find, Ron. Thank you.

John

PS I am not opposed to firearms in general, but I see no reason that firearms should not be registered and that certain classes of weapons be banned.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 28, 2011 10:14AM)
Yea the problem is which "classes" of weapons should be banned? People scoff at the slippery slope theory but in our country health care is a perfect example. They want single payer but absolutely know the people will not go for it in one fell swoop. So they put in place a gateway to get what they want.

Anti-gun advocates absolutely want what Andrew wants. Abolition of all gun ownership. Registering weapons, and banning spacific "classes" of weapons is a perfect gateway. It is how our political system works. So if people who are not anti gun are a bit worried, you can't call them paranoid.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 28, 2011 10:18AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:09, acesover wrote:


I really have to be honest here. I am not sure what is not true in the original post. [/quote]

Perhaps you didn't read the responses or follow the links. Soles is not anti-gun. In fact, he gets a favorable rating from the NRA and other gun-issue lobby groups.
[quote]
I may be wrong in my assumptions as I did not research the post that I found but rather just posted a link to it to show what I consider his hipocracy. Many politicans campaign on ideals that they do no endorse but believe will get them elected.[/quote]

This is the irony. Soles was guilty. But not of hypocrisy. He plead down to a misdemeanor assault and paid a $1000 fine. The hypocrisy was not Soles's but the blogger's.

[quote]Again I am not sure what is a lie in the article I posted. If it is wrong I apologize but I did not write it but rther only found it and posted it. To be honest that is one of the reasons I seldom use information on the net but rather just voice my own opinion. By doing differently this time it seemes like it bit me in the read end if what I posted is nothing but a lie.
[/quote]

No apology is necessary. I believe you made a mistake, not a deliberate lie. But I do think it is nice if we acknowledge and correct our mistakes. Cripes, I'm wrong an awful lot of the time.

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 28, 2011 11:18AM)
The tactic of bringing up the idea of everyone owning an uzi, or bazooka is an especially interesting fear tactic considering the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 28, 2011 11:22AM)
The idea of registering guns is just as laughable considering the large issues with gun smuggling, and stolen firearms kind of negates any usefulness of a registry.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 28, 2011 11:28AM)
But it works to make another side look unreasonable so bringing up an uzi or bazooka makes perfect sense.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 28, 2011 12:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 12:18, gdw wrote:
The tactic of bringing up the idea of everyone owning an uzi, or bazooka is an especially interesting fear tactic considering the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.
[/quote]

The point is to query whether any restriction is defensible. If someone takes the stance that everyone can own nuclear missiles, then there really isn't any point in discussing much else. OTOH if both sides agree that at least some weapons require restriction, then they can have a reasonable discussion about where the relevant differences lie.

For example, in Canada there is very little debate about whether the current restrictions on handguns is justified. The debate is sharply focused on the wisdom of registering "long guns". This is a very important step in the discussion.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 28, 2011 12:15PM)
In Canada perhaps that is reasonable.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 28, 2011 12:35PM)
Just to remind you, at the time that the Second Amendment was written, the armed forces of Great Britain, France, and the United States were equipped with (usually .75 caliber) smoothbore muskets of the "Brown Bess" type, which were quite inaccurate and ineffective beyond a range of 50 to 100 yards.

In contrast, the hunters and frontiersman of the then-Western United States were equipped with the "Pennsylvania long rifle" or "Kentucky rifle," based on the German Jaeger rifle, which although usually of only .40 to .50 caliber, was much more accurate than the smoothbore musket, and in the hands of an experienced marksman, effective out to a range of as much as 400 yards, in other words quite as effective as a twentieth century military rifle with iron sights in the hands of most soldiers.

In other words, the civilian of the day was equipped with a far better weapon than the soldier, and the civilian was usually more proficient in its use. That is one reason why the Founders thought that this country could be adequately defended by a "well-regulated" (=competent) militia.

Until Senator Thomas Dodd crafted US gun-control legislation on models supplied by the Library of Congress from National-Socialist German legislation on file, it was possible to purchase almost any hand-gun or long-gun by mail order in this country, no questions asked. Including huge anti-tank rifles. I remember a model of one of those was listed for sale in an ad in Popular Mechanics when I was a kid, and for only about $112.99, if memory serves. (It would be worth more than $15,000 today.)

Submachine guns, like Tommy guns or Uzis, are available for purchase by civilians today, in fact, but are subject to a difficult Federal tax requirement and very few are available.

Noise suppressors or "silencers" are also highly regulated in the United States, although in Europe, they are very commonly purchased, and in England it is considered rude to hunt using a rifle not so equipped (because the noise bothers the neighbors).

I think nuclear weapons are beyond the reach of most private citizens.

But the gradualist or carefully crafted limitations that Magnus advocates on the Canadian model are hazardous. In some countries, similar restrictions are being applied to free speech. It is now in Europe for all practical purposes illegal to criticize Islam, the Noble Qu'ran, or the Prophet Muhummad, upon whom be peace. On the other hand, to display in a museum a crucifix in a bottle of urine is considered a thoughtful and penetrating artistic expression. With the suppression of speech, as Orwell observed, comes the suppression of thought. Prevent people from formulating a thought in words, and you will soon be able to prevent them from thinking it.

Over centuries, many men (and women) bled and died to gain -and preserve- for our country unquestioned freedom of speech, of the press, of conscience . . . and of the right to keep & bear arms. You can probably have freedom of speech and of religion without the right to keep & bear arms . . . for a time.

And it has been observed that an armed population is a people's best defense against genocide.

Thomas Jefferson observed that the tree of Liberty will have to be periodically watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Let's hope more of the latter than the former.

Woland
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 28, 2011 12:58PM)
Reductio ad abusurdum can be used fallaciously (and often is), but it is not inherently a fallacy, but a legitimate argumentative technique. You can always have a reasonable argument about reasonable and appropriate regulations pertaining to the right to bear arms, but if one side does (or pretends to) take the position, "Second Amendment, no regulations, period!!!!" then reductio ad absurdum is perfectly reasonable to create the agreement that some restrictions or regulations are appropriate...at which point you can begin the real discussion about just what those regulations might be. Or discover that you're talking to somebody who believes that everyone should be able to own his own nuclear bomb, at which point you should probably excuse yourself to use the bathroom, then climb out the window.

As an analogy to reductio ad absurdum as a logical technique vs. fallacy, let's say someone makes the claim that "Mammals can't fly," which is incorrect as a categorical statement. Bringing up bats isn't a fallacy; it's a demonstration that the assertion is flat out wrong. The first person doesn't get to say something like, "Oh, well, if you're going to take extreme examples like the bat, you're just being silly."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 28, 2011 01:04PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 07:41, landmark wrote:
Lobo you beat me to it. Hmm, I'm starting to agree with you too much these days, though I recognize it's more about how to argue than what.
[/quote]

I apologize profusely for any distress this may be causing you. :D
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 28, 2011 01:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 13:35, Woland wrote:
Just to remind you, at the time that the Second Amendment was written, the armed forces of Great Britain, France, and the United States were equipped with (usually .75 caliber) smoothbore muskets of the "Brown Bess" type, which were quite inaccurate and ineffective beyond a range of 50 to 100 yards.

In contrast, the hunters and frontiersman of the then-Western United States were equipped with the "Pennsylvania long rifle" or "Kentucky rifle," based on the German Jaeger rifle, which although usually of only .40 to .50 caliber, was much more accurate than the smoothbore musket, and in the hands of an experienced marksman, effective out to a range of as much as 400 yards, in other words quite as effective as a twentieth century military rifle with iron sights in the hands of most soldiers.

In other words, the civilian of the day was equipped with a far better weapon than the soldier, and the civilian was usually more proficient in its use. That is one reason why the Founders thought that this country could be adequately defended by a "well-regulated" (=competent) militia.

Until Senator Thomas Dodd crafted US gun-control legislation on models supplied by the Library of Congress from National-Socialist German legislation on file, it was possible to purchase almost any hand-gun or long-gun by mail order in this country, no questions asked. Including huge anti-tank rifles. I remember a model of one of those was listed for sale in an ad in Popular Mechanics when I was a kid, and for only about $112.99, if memory serves. (It would be worth more than $15,000 today.)

Submachine guns, like Tommy guns or Uzis, are available for purchase by civilians today, in fact, but are subject to a difficult Federal tax requirement and very few are available.

Noise suppressors or "silencers" are also highly regulated in the United States, although in Europe, they are very commonly purchased, and in England it is considered rude to hunt using a rifle not so equipped (because the noise bothers the neighbors).

I think nuclear weapons are beyond the reach of most private citizens.

But the gradualist or carefully crafted limitations that Magnus advocates on the Canadian model are hazardous. In some countries, similar restrictions are being applied to free speech. It is now in Europe for all practical purposes illegal to criticize Islam, the Noble Qu'ran, or the Prophet Muhummad, upon whom be peace. On the other hand, to display in a museum a crucifix in a bottle of urine is considered a thoughtful and penetrating artistic expression. With the suppression of speech, as Orwell observed, comes the suppression of thought. Prevent people from formulating a thought in words, and you will soon be able to prevent them from thinking it.

Over centuries, many men (and women) bled and died to gain -and preserve- for our country unquestioned freedom of speech, of the press, of conscience . . . and of the right to keep & bear arms. You can probably have freedom of speech and of religion without the right to keep & bear arms . . . for a time.

And it has been observed that an armed population is a people's best defense against genocide.

Thomas Jefferson observed that the tree of Liberty will have to be periodically watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Let's hope more of the latter than the former.

Woland
[/quote]

Europe's certainly not to only place with growing limitations on speech and expression.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 28, 2011 01:55PM)
No, but it is more apparent there than here.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 28, 2011 02:05PM)
Does europe have free speech zones, and arrest people for dancing near monuments? Honestly, I don't know if they do have things like that.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 28, 2011 02:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 13:35, Woland wrote:

Just to remind you, at the time that the Second Amendment was written, the armed forces of Great Britain, France, and the United States were equipped with (usually .75 caliber) smoothbore muskets of the "Brown Bess" type, which were quite inaccurate and ineffective beyond a range of 50 to 100 yards.

In contrast, the hunters and frontiersman of the then-Western United States were equipped with the "Pennsylvania long rifle" or "Kentucky rifle," based on the German Jaeger rifle, which although usually of only .40 to .50 caliber, was much more accurate than the smoothbore musket, and in the hands of an experienced marksman, effective out to a range of as much as 400 yards, in other words quite as effective as a twentieth century military rifle with iron sights in the hands of most soldiers.

In other words, the civilian of the day was equipped with a far better weapon than the soldier, and the civilian was usually more proficient in its use. That is one reason why the Founders thought that this country could be adequately defended by a "well-regulated" (=competent) militia.
[/quote]
Various resources online put the effective range of the Brown Bess far beyond the 50 to 100 yards you claim. E.g.,

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_brown_bess.html

And whereas the Brown Bess muskets could be fired up to 4 or 5 times a minute, the long rifles could take up to a minute to reload.

I'm not disputing that the long rifles were an improvement in some way, but I think your comparisons and subsequent conclusions from them are somewhat off.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 28, 2011 02:13PM)
Certainly even though I am VERY pro second ammendment, the Uzi never was concieved was it?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 28, 2011 02:53PM)
Well, balducci, if you read contemporary accounts, or consider what happened at the Battle of New Orleans, the Pennsylvania long rifle was far and away the most devastating weapon used in war during its heyday. Although a trained infantryman could maintain a good rate of fire with a musket, so could a skilled frontiersman with a rifle, and remember that the musket was used to fire in volleys, and not for effect; the militiamen who devastated the British at New Orleans were definitely aiming for effect.

My only conclusion is that the civilian of the day (at least in Pennsylvania and in areas later settled by Pennsylvania-German gunsmiths) could easily obtain a weapon that was superior to the military weaponry of his time.

Since the Founders wanted an armed population to be a counterweight to the authority of the State (and it is clear that that's what many of them wanted), it should be evident that they expected that the population would be armed with weapons comparable to those in the armouries of the State.

The fully-automatic M-14 was in my opinion the finest battle rifle ever deployed. It's a pity that most of the remaining stock were sold to Lithuania and other countries at $10 a piece rather than being made available to the public, as the M-1 Garands were/are.

But that's as far as I would take it, myself. Although Swiss militiamen (i.e. the vast majority of the male population, aged 18-45) keep fully automatic battle rifles or light assault rifles at home, along with at least 200 rounds of ammunition, only those who are identified as having the immediate need for them in an emergency keep explosives, rocket launchers, and the like. One of my neighbors once owned a surplus tank, but I don't think the mileage you'd get on one would encourage most people to train with one regularly.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 28, 2011 06:05PM)
"But that's as far as I would take it, myself. Although Swiss militiamen (i.e. the vast majority of the male population, aged 18-45) keep fully automatic battle rifles or light assault rifles at home, along with at least 200 rounds of ammunition, only those who are identified as having the immediate need for them in an emergency keep explosives, rocket launchers, and the like. "

Fair enough. Limit the the regular US military to 5% of military personnel as Switzerland's regular military is, and I'll go along with a militia.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 28, 2011 06:17PM)
The UZI is a reliable, but not particularly powerful, weapon. It is fairly accurate for a sub-machine gun. A 9mm round isn't likely to penetrate a bulletproof vest. But a knife will do it. I don't know if I had a point.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 28, 2011 07:16PM)
Well, critter, you had a good point. A knife is a very formidable weapon. Never runs out of ammunition. And doesn't leave any cases or any ballistic fingerprints behind . . . .

And landmark, according to the United States Code, "the militia of the United States" consists of all able-bodied males from the age of 17 to 45, and all females who are in the armed forces. It does exist, on paper, although the provisions of the Act of 1792 are sadly no longer in force:

[quote]That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. [/quote]

The Act was used by President Washington in 1794, when he had to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, when he was the last President to serve in uniform as the direct commander of a military force.

I agree that if we did have universal military training and recurrent periods of service for all men from the age of 17 to 45, like the Swiss and the Israelis, who adopted the Swiss program, we could dispense with parts of our current forces. We would have well over 50,000,000 men at arms, a sufficient force to deter any invader. However, it would not deter every terrorist, and a core of professional centurions would be needed to handle a lot of the technology.

Woland
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 28, 2011 10:36PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 23:28, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-27 20:09, acesover wrote:

Again I am not sure what is a lie in the article I posted. If it is wrong I apologize but I did not write it but rther only found it and posted it. To be honest that is one of the reasons I seldom use information on the net but rather just voice my own opinion. By doing differently this time it seemes like it bit me in the read end if what I posted is nothing but a lie.
[/quote]
Opinions are fine, but I think they need to be backed up with facts to be taken seriously.

And I think information off the web is also fine, but it should be cross checked against neutral or close to neutral sources before it is taken seriously.
[/quote]

Well no one really told me what was a lie in the article I referred too. So be it.

Your comment about opinions being fine but you feel should be backed up with facts I do not aagree with. Some people interput facts differently than others thus arrive at different opinions. Ths is what opinions are just that opinions arrived at by what people know and feel about what they know. Therefore two people could red the same set of facts and come up with different opinions.

Also I would like to comment on crossrefrencing articles on the web. If we did that we would never have time to do anything else because you could cross check your cross checks add infinitum.

Besides nothing we post here is earth shattering nor does it mean a darn thing in the whole scheme of things. It just gives us a place to let off steam and voice our "opinions". It proves nor settles anything.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 31, 2011 07:11PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 12:18, gdw wrote:
The tactic of bringing up the idea of everyone owning an uzi, or bazooka is an especially interesting fear tactic considering the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.
[/quote]

Not only that but the vast majority of gun related deaths (including murders) are with .22 caliber bullets. Not, big scary black assault rifles with "things that go up," (sic, Sen. McCarthy).
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 31, 2011 07:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 12:22, gdw wrote:
The idea of registering guns is just as laughable considering the large issues with gun smuggling, and stolen firearms kind of negates any usefulness of a registry.
[/quote]

That's where you miss the point of gun control. Lunatics in Congress don't care about what guns drug cartels and criminal gang bangers have.

They want to know what guns YOU and I have.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 31, 2011 07:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 13:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 12:18, gdw wrote:
The tactic of bringing up the idea of everyone owning an uzi, or bazooka is an especially interesting fear tactic considering the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.
[/quote]

The point is to query whether any restriction is defensible. If someone takes the stance that everyone can own nuclear missiles, then there really isn't any point in discussing much else. OTOH if both sides agree that at least some weapons require restriction, then they can have a reasonable discussion about where the relevant differences lie.

For example, in Canada there is very little debate about whether the current restrictions on handguns is justified. The debate is sharply focused on the wisdom of registering "long guns". This is a very important step in the discussion.

John
[/quote]

Have you not followed the "progress" of the former Soviet Union? Anyone CAN buy a nuclear missile for the right price.

I would agree there is some level of restriction that's fine.

If Congress wants to ban civilian ownership of nuclear technology, tanks, fighter jets, stealth aircraft, surface to air missiles, laser guided bombs, hey I'm fine with that.

My objection comes when we're talking about banning or restricting small arms that a human being can reasonably use to defend their own lives.

That's my beef. 2nd Amendment or not, I am a living breathing life form and I have every right to defend my own life and that of my family.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 31, 2011 07:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 15:05, gdw wrote:
Does europe have free speech zones, and arrest people for dancing near monuments? Honestly, I don't know if they do have things like that.
[/quote]

That video made me sick. If I was the judge I'd dismiss the case with prejudice and order a number of those officers be taken into custody and charged with battery. I would also remand them without bail.

But then, this is Washington DC we're talking about. They enforce rules on the peasants that they themselves are not subjected to.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 31, 2011 07:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-28 15:53, Woland wrote:
Well, balducci, if you read contemporary accounts, or consider what happened at the Battle of New Orleans, the Pennsylvania long rifle was far and away the most devastating weapon used in war during its heyday. Although a trained infantryman could maintain a good rate of fire with a musket, so could a skilled frontiersman with a rifle, and remember that the musket was used to fire in volleys, and not for effect; the militiamen who devastated the British at New Orleans were definitely aiming for effect.

My only conclusion is that the civilian of the day (at least in Pennsylvania and in areas later settled by Pennsylvania-German gunsmiths) could easily obtain a weapon that was superior to the military weaponry of his time.

Since the Founders wanted an armed population to be a counterweight to the authority of the State (and it is clear that that's what many of them wanted), it should be evident that they expected that the population would be armed with weapons comparable to those in the armouries of the State.

The fully-automatic M-14 was in my opinion the finest battle rifle ever deployed. It's a pity that most of the remaining stock were sold to Lithuania and other countries at $10 a piece rather than being made available to the public, as the M-1 Garands were/are.

But that's as far as I would take it, myself. Although Swiss militiamen (i.e. the vast majority of the male population, aged 18-45) keep fully automatic battle rifles or light assault rifles at home, along with at least 200 rounds of ammunition, only those who are identified as having the immediate need for them in an emergency keep explosives, rocket launchers, and the like. One of my neighbors once owned a surplus tank, but I don't think the mileage you'd get on one would encourage most people to train with one regularly.
[/quote]

As a side note, historians have found that the majority of rifles recovered from battle fields during the Civil War were never fired. Despite the number of dead, apparently troops on both sides had a problem with killing their countrymen. Otherwise the casualties in the Civil War would have been monumentally higher.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 31, 2011 07:55PM)
[quote]That's my beef. 2nd Amendment or not, I am a living breathing life form and I have every right to defend my own life and that of my family. [/quote]

As you know, the 2nd Amendment grants you no rights at all. The 2nd Amendment requires the government to respect the rights that are your endowment from your Creator.
Message: Posted by: gdw (May 31, 2011 08:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-31 20:55, Woland wrote:
[quote]That's my beef. 2nd Amendment or not, I am a living breathing life form and I have every right to defend my own life and that of my family. [/quote]

As you know, the 2nd Amendment grants you no rights at all. The 2nd Amendment requires the government to respect the rights that are your endowment from your Creator.
[/quote]

Just curious, who holds them to this requirement? Because they have been REALLY slacking off.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 1, 2011 06:56AM)
Well, gdw, ultimately it is the people who hold them to this requirement . . . because we never did really believe in the Mandate of Heaven in this country . . . through the ballot box, the people hold their elected officials accountable to their solemn oaths or affirmations to defend the Constitution . . . who holds any usurper to any requirement, anyway?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jun 1, 2011 09:16AM)
But the govt is the one who has the power to lock up the people, so that certainly sounds like a good system for keeping them in line.

As for the ballot box, how well has that been working? When you vote for, say, someone who says they are for government transparency, and then has one of the least transparent american governments in history, I think it shows how well the ballot box holds them to anything.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 1, 2011 05:34PM)
Wait until next time . . . the system is not perfect . . . it is a horrible form of government . . . but it is vastly better than any other form of government . . . or no government.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jun 1, 2011 07:32PM)
Speaking of government, the Supreme Court just ruled 8-0 (Kagan recused herself) that the Attorney General could not be held liable for essentially imprisoning, under false circumstances, a U.S. Citizen for 16 days.

The attorney general in question was Ashcroft. And Obama, in this case, sided with Bush and Co., supporting Ashcroft on the grounds that the case going to trial would set a precedence that could compromise national security.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 1, 2011 08:24PM)
I find it interesting on how many issues Kagan will have to recuse herself in the near future.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 1, 2011 09:32PM)
The best item related to that story, EsnRedshirt, was the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01wed1.html?_r=1&ref=editorials]New Duranty Times editorial:[/url]

[quote]But the 8-to-0 vote (Justice Elena Kagan was recused because of her involvement as solicitor general) was hardly as unanimous as it seemed . . . .[/quote]

That's what I call whistling in the dark. 8-zilch is about as unanimous as it gets, my friends.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 1, 2011 10:19PM)
Gdw, you still don't have a clue.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jun 1, 2011 10:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-06-01 23:19, magicfish wrote:
Gdw, you still don't have a clue.
[/quote]
You really popped in just to say that? You're always thinking of me, I'm touched.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 1, 2011 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-06-01 21:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
I find it interesting on how many issues Kagan will have to recuse herself in the near future.
[/quote]
Or she could be like Scalia and Thomas and not recuse herself when it is clearly the ethical thing to do.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 1, 2011 10:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-06-01 23:25, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-06-01 23:19, magicfish wrote:
Gdw, you still don't have a clue.
[/quote]
You really popped in just to say that? You're always thinking of me, I'm touched.
[/quote]
Yes I did because I'm puzzled that you don't make any intellectual progress. You still give the impression that the government is a separate unaccountable entity.
Of course we give the government the power to lock us up. It is absolutely necessary. We alao lock up the members of the government if they break the law. Hence the separation of the judicial and the legeslative and the executive. Yet you continue your hollywood movie fuelled attack on freedom and democracy. I suppose you take your right to protest your government for granted. For your sake, I'm glad youre not a syrian teenager.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 2, 2011 12:20AM)
Back to guns. Someone sent the following to me today:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AiD8mu08YY]This[/url] is why you should not keep guns in the house, care of one of Canada's best beloved sitcoms.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 2, 2011 04:50AM)
There are many things wrong with the situation portrayed, but keeping a gun in the house is not one of them.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 2, 2011 06:16AM)
Three points.
1, Hunters don't snatch purses.
2, in america, gunfree zones have the highes crime rate. Areas with the most guns have the lowest crime rate.
3. every single citizen in switzerland is required by law to own a firearm. Guess what? you guessed it- no crime.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 2, 2011 06:21AM)
No crime?

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

Be advised that Switzerland is a remarkably small country.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 2, 2011 06:22AM)
Gun crime. yes it is very small.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 2, 2011 06:29AM)
Switzerland is a strange place. Ever been there?

It's like Singapore.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 2, 2011 07:41AM)
Switzerland is changing. From the article you linked:

[quote]The crime rate among resident foreigners (immigrant criminality) is significantly higher (by a factor 3.7 counting convictions under criminal law in 2003).[6] In 1997, there were for the first time more foreigners than Swiss among the convicts under criminal law (out of a fraction of 20.6% of the total population at the time). In 1999, the Federal Department of Justice and Police ordered a study regarding delinquency and nationality (Arbeitsgruppe "Ausländerkriminalität"), which in its final report (2001) found that a conviction rate under criminal law about 12 times higher among asylum seekers (4%), while the conviction rate among other resident foreigners was about twice as high (0.6%) compared to Swiss citizens (0.3%).[/quote]

I have only ever been to Basel, and that nearly 40 years ago. I was quite comfortable there, as I recall. I have not been to Singapore, but Mrs. Woland visited, and said she was quite uncomfortable -- she was always afraid that she was unwittingly committing some infraction that would inevitably lead to caning.

From what I have read recently, and based on conversations with Swiss citizens, the rate of participation in military service in Switzerland is declining. This may lead to less and less participation in the national sport of rifle marksmanship, as well. The Swiss have a remarkable military history, and won their independence from far bigger and more powerful empires by virtue of the ferocity and tenacity which made them the hired guards of the crowned heads of Europe (a role they still fulfill in the Vatican) and which is memorialized by the Lion of Lucerne. That era of Swiss history may be slowly coming to a close.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 2, 2011 10:52AM)
"I have not been to Singapore, but Mrs. Woland visited, and said she was quite uncomfortable -- she was always afraid that she was unwittingly committing some infraction that would inevitably lead to caning. "

So, it's a masochist's wonderland?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 2, 2011 10:58AM)
I miss the Michael Fay story.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 2, 2011 12:11PM)
Well, landmark, I think it's just all of the news coverage in the West, emphasizing how strict Singapore is, how many things are against the law, and how severe the punishments are. I think the result is a city unlike any other in Southeast Asia, however.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 2, 2011 03:51PM)
[quote]
On 2011-06-01 23:30, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-06-01 21:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
I find it interesting on how many issues Kagan will have to recuse herself in the near future.
[/quote]
Or she could be like Scalia and Thomas and not recuse herself when it is clearly the ethical thing to do.
[/quote]

Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you is evil. I keep forgetting.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 2, 2011 11:31PM)
Not disagreeing, just pointing out another possibility. Thomas and Scalia have been on cases where the stench of [url=http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773617&ct=9039331]conflict of interest [/url]was mighty. Who's to say she won't do the same?
Message: Posted by: JRob (Jun 3, 2011 08:27AM)
So allegation=conviction?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 3, 2011 03:51PM)
Certainly no conviction, I don't have that power. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that Kagan can blithely ignore calls for recusation, if she so chooses, with little consequence. That's part of the Supreme Court dealio. (I'm picking up Danny's unused dealios).
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 3, 2011 06:14PM)
So in YOUR eyes and in the eyes of those who hate the right, then that is the standard huh? Do you really think that? Are you so ideologically blinkered as to just be that blind? Man it is sad as can be.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 3, 2011 07:42PM)
I'm just pointing out what is, Danny. If you're upset by it, then speak to Clarence and Antonin.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 3, 2011 08:43PM)
I am not upset. I am just shocked at the blinders you wear.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 3, 2011 09:46PM)
I'm sorry that my statement of fact about the Supreme Court shocks you. In the future, I'll try to warn you ahead of time. For the record, I hold no brief for Kagan, and thought she was a poor choice.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 4, 2011 08:55AM)
Again you keep using stupid 9th grade straw men tactics like I am sorry I shocked you. Dude again no. The only point is that even if you think she is a poor choice, she is a lib appointee so your blinders go on no matter what. If it furthers a lib agenda your happy. NEVER critical of anything any lib ever does. That is the rule. Lib first.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 4, 2011 12:36PM)
Well Danny, I'm glad to be your very own straw man. You know very well that I've often criticized people you consider libs (Obama, Gore) and yet you continue to make the same baseless assertion. I can only think you do it because you want to set me up as some straw man.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 23, 2011 02:14PM)
Interesting article at the link below about guns.

[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/?single_page=true[/url]

Lots of interesting trivia in there, not the least of which is how the NRA used to be at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. And how the Black Panthers deserve significant credit for launching the modern gun-rights movement.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 23, 2011 02:57PM)
Oh absolutely on the Black Panthers. Black men walking around with guns and ammunition belts across their shoulders were not exactly soothing to the FBI. Though Fred Hampton made the mistake of going to sleep, it may have prolonged the lives of some of them. Anyway, I thought it was dangerous and intimidating then, as it is now.